I very much regret troubling the House at this late hour, but in extenuation, I would say that the subject of deserters to which I wish to draw attention is one that warrants such inconvenience. It is a very human problem, and it concerns what has become a great submerged element of the community, an element which has become isolated and, to some degree, despised and ostracised by the majority of the people. This tendency to classify all deserters as alike is a tendency that I deprecate. Without trying to over-simplify the matter, I would place deserters into three categories. The first and smallest category consists of those members of the Forces who were criminals before they entered the Forces. Of the treatment that will be meted out to them I can only say that I hope it will be reformative and remedial. The second category consists of the men who went into the Forces and were as good men and as sound in character as most hon. Members of this House, but who, through their experiences in the Army or the other Services, became deserters and were then forced into a life of crime. The third category, and certainly the largest of the three groups, consists of the men who are now living a clandestine life, trying to "make do" on their wits, trying to live on charity, or trying to live by means of minor crime and devices of all kinds.

The main problem relating to this third group is that it is vulnerable, in the sense that if something is not done about those men, they will be compelled, by economic necessity, to lead a life of crime. It is easy to say they are bound to be tempted sooner or later. They are without ration books, without identity cards, and they have to "make do" in every respect, and, some time or other, many are bound to be tempted to join the other deserters who have taken to a life of crime. The police are very concerned about this problem of deserters. It is most unfortunate that I have only the 1945 Report of the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis. The phrase therein used in this connection is, in my view, an exceptional example of under-statement. It is: A special problem was presented by the considerable number of deserters from British and Allied Forces who, being without ration books and other proper papers, had every inducement to prey on the public in order to live. That as I say is an under-statement. I think a colloquialism that might well be used of the deserters who have been responsible for some of the crime is that they have, to some degree, become "trigger happy," and it is because of that that the police authorities and, possibly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I see on the Front Bench, are very concerned about this. The 1945 Report, by its very nature, only touched upon the fringe of this problem, it is in the 1946 Report that we shall see the real figures revealed. I understand that, so far, nine per cent. of indictable crimes have been traced to deserters. But that does not mean anything. What about the number of crimes the perpetrators of which have not yet been traced. Many of these can be laid at the door of the deserters, apart from those for which deserters have been indicted. I have had discussions on this matter with various police authorities all over the country. Naturally, I cannot mention any names, but they all agree that something must be done immediately about the problem of deserters. It is their greatest headache today, and they are most anxious for something to be done. But by virtue of their office, the heads of these forces cannot do more than make official representations through their official channels.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made his appeal on 22nd January. There were then approximately —to use his words-20,000 deserters at large in the United Kingdom. Of what the number was in Germany, Italy, or other late theatres of war, no mention was made; but I think we can assume that there must be some substantial number. Whether it is a considerable number or not I will not venture to say. From 22nd January to 31st March, between 2,000 and 2,300 deserters surrendered, leaving a balance of something like 18,000. If the Minister of Defence is satisfied with the response to his appeal, this House, and I think I can say the country, are not. I can well understand the feelings of deserters when they looked at the statement which the Minister made. In my view there was a certain lack of warmth in it. Of course, deserters cannot be welcomed with honeyed and cloying words; but the Minister's statement lacked a certain psychological feeling and approach. Its wording was obscure, and the only bait with which he tempted them to surrender, was the statement that after trial and' a possible sentence, they would have to undergo a further 12 months' of service in the Forces before they were released.

In addition—I think on 2nd April—the Minister of Defence in my view attempted to take an unfair advantage of the feelings of the general public on this matter, and tried to create a division between the deserters—who after all are a very small minority of the men who served in the Forces—and the public, by saying that the public would resent the granting of an amnesty to deserters, or any further lenient treatment of them. The Minister went on to ask what would be the feelings of those who had lost sons while they were serving in the war, and of the men who served their full time in the war, and so on. From my reading of public feeling on this matter, I am convinced that there is no more of that vindictive and malicious feeling which the Minister of Defence tried to outline than one would expect from the British public. The country is anxious that some definite step should be taken by the Government to settle this problem, and it does not want every deserter brought' to trial and sent to prison for some misdemeanour committed largely through no fault of his own.

Why do men desert? Are we to say that they are all cowards? Even if we do, we ought to put a question mark against the word "coward," because analysis has shown that what is called cowardice may be a form of neurosis. Do men desert because they are bored, or because of some imagined grievance or injustice; is it because they are misfits to a large extent, or because of financial difficulties? Surely, too, we must accept the fact that men often were absent without leave because of domestic difficulties. Their wives may have caused them suffering, or the actions of wives of other men may have spread some rumour in their regiment or ship's company. These men are sensitive when they are in the Services, and it was the most natural thing in the world for them to begin to feel they had to go to their homes. I think it is impossible to go through a war of such dimensions as the last, without expecting some human problem of this kind. But whatever reason may be accepted for desertion, it cannot be said that these men were criminals when they deserted; they were normal human beings. That is an aspect which I think is absent from the mentality of the Minister of Defence or, if not from his mind, from the minds of the Service Chiefs, regarding this matter.

If I may go back to the first war—I have made a little research into this matter —I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was Secretary of State for War. In February and July, 1920, I notice, in answer to questions by hon. Members he was adamant in his attitude to deserters and was going to give them short shrift. In March, 1922, Sir L. Worthington Evans, who was then Secretary of State for War, showed signs of relenting and here is his reference to what was known as a "form of confession." This form of confession appears in King's Regulations, paragraphs 636 and 637, wherein it is stated: when it is not considered desirable that he should be tried for his offence then it is within the discretion of the commandng officer to dispense with the soldier's services without trial. or words to that effect, and he is then enabled to take up his avocation in civilian life. I wonder if that is still in force? I wonder whether that procedure is in any shape or form being used today because if it is not, I would rather regret that. It seems to me a reasonable proceeding, and one that ought to be adopted. Let us look abroad for a moment. One of the Dominions — Canada — granted by Order in Council, an almost complete amnesty to "hostilities only" personnel—I must qualify that—in August, 1946. I have managed to get a copy of it from the Library. It is almost unconditional and shows a better and more generous frame of mind than has yet been exhibited in this country. The main grounds on which that amnesty was granted, it appears to me, were first: that there would result a substantial saving in manpower and the resources of the country in not having to keep manpower available to trace deserters and put them on trial and incarcerate them and it would not be necessary to keep trained personnel to look after them in prison. Secondly, a benefit would accrue to the nation in so far as those men who had deserted would no longer be outlaws and have to resort to crime for a living, but would be gainfully employed in civilian life and so be able to make a contribution towards the country's economic life. Does that not apply to this country today.

With the necessity for every man to be in industry that is one of my main pleas to the Minister. If the Minister, after consultation with the Services themselves, cannot see his way to granting an amnesty —I know the objections and appreciate the difficulties on the grounds of discipline while we still have large forces—may we not expect some more clemency? For instance, when he made his appeal, if he had, instead of talking about men having to serve a twelve months' term in the Forces after trial and, possibly a term of imprisonment—if he had made the penalty only twelve months' service in the Forces which they left without any reference to the question of trial and the possibility of a prison sentence, would that not have been a reasonable proceeding in the circumstances? Whether he agrees or not, it would certainly have had a much greater response than he got. There is some substance in the point that sooner or later the Government will have to do something in the matter. I ask the Minister to give encouragement, not only to the men, but to the country as a whole.

I must emphasise that these men were normal citizens when they went into the Forces and have the right to be treated as human beings, not only the men concerned, but also the men's families. Why should their families have this stigma of crime thrust on them. This is part of the tragic background which is all too often lost sight of. Then cannot something be done about reviewing the sentences on men already sent to gaol? I recently had the pleasure—and I thought it the greatest achievement in my short experience of Parliament—to get a man out of Dart-moor. I managed, after writing to the Secretary of State for War, to get some remission of his sentence. Nothing the Minister could do would give greater satisfaction than to remit in some degree the sentences of men serving for desertion. It would be a reasonable step to take. The Government must make up their mind. This cannot go on indefinitely. I said once in asking my right hon. Friend a Question that the policy of the Government was harsh and inconclusive. I have tried to outline tonight why it is harsh. It is inconclusive because if nothing is done of a definite constructive nature, then we shall have deserters tottering to their graves at 70 and 80 years of age. We shall not catch up with them. That is what it amounts to. In the meantime, we will have some of them taking to a life of crime and forcing other people to their graves. These men are good, decent men —they were decent enough when they were in the Forces. Please give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves in civilian life.