I do not intend to attempt to reply to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), except to say that I have heard him on several occasions, and I am fast approaching the position of one who realises that no person and no party in this House can raise any subject without having, shall I say, party motives or vote-catching motives attributed to them except the hon. Member for Mossley. He is the Simon Pure of the House. At all times and in all circumstances he is the gentleman who is right. That is his attitude on this question of pensions. I want, very briefly, in supporting this Amendment, to refer first of all to the question of the deductions which have been made in thousands of cases from the pay of men, on the ground that at some previous period they have received an over-payment. I put down a question this afternoon with reference to this matter, and I am not satisfied with the reply that I received. It was to the effect, in the first place, that such a deduction was justified by the Royal Warrant, and that, in the second place, these deductions were only made after the most careful inquiry and with due regard to the circumstances of the pensioner from whom the money was being deducted. The first point is, to my mind, doubtful, in view of the decision in the Law Courts during the last week. On the second point, I am not doubtful at all. There is no question that in many cases these deductions have been made without full and adequate inquiry, and there is no question, further, that in many cases these deductions have been made from persons who, after the deduction has been made, are left without even the means for the barest possible existence. That may not be the desire of the Minister or of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should not like to say or suggest that it is. But I do say that in our experience we are being brought face to face with these conditions weekly.

I want to quote a ease which has come within my own knowledge during the past few weeks, and which will, I think, illustrate the point. A discharged man suffering from heart and chest trouble in my own constituency was recommended by a medical officer for institutional treatment. He accepted the institutional treatment, as indeed he was bound to do. Had he not accepted it he would have been liable to have his pension reduced as one who was not doing his best to recover his health and to become fit for work. He was sent to an institution approved by the Ministry for the treatment of cases such as his, namely, the sanatorium at Middleton, in Wharfedale. After three or four months' treatment he was discharged considerably improved in health. During the time he was there his treatment allowance had been paid to his wife and family. After he came out he was examined by a further medical officer attached to the Ministry who, finding him considerably improved, decided that the officer who had recommended him for the treatment had made a mistake, and that the treatment that he had received was not what he would term appropriate treatment, and the Ministry, I suppose, acting on the decision of that medical officer, decided that as the treatment had not been appropriate treatment the treatment allowance had not been properly paid, and they instituted a system of deduction from his pay. I am at a loss to understand how that can be justified. The man stood to lose in either case. Had he refused to accept the treatment he would have been treated as a malingerer and a deduction would have been made. He accepted the treatment and was benefited by it and came home somewhat restored in health to find that he was treated as an offender, and a deduction was made from his 30 per cent. pension.

That is not the only case I could quote. There are more within my own constituency. I agree it is time something was done to bring home to officials of the Ministry that they are not acting as Parliament would desire them to act in this matter, or as the nation would desire them to act. I am still prepared to believe that the great heart of the nation beats sound towards these men who served and suffered for them. They are anxious that they should have given to them in every case what was always promised, that in doubtful matters they should have the benefit of the doubt. I have come to the conclusion that in actual practice, in doubtful matters, the Ministry have taken the benefit and the man has had to suffer.

I should like to say a word or two in reference to the case of the man who is in receipt of a partial disability pension—who may be receiving a pension for 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. disability— according to the medical opinion, disabled to the extent of three-tenths or two-fifths of his working capacity, though in actual practice, looking upon him as a candidate for work, and having to place his ability in the labour market, it often proves a total disablement. He is unable to get work, and in consequence these men who were to be heroes, who were our real patriots, had been compelled to seek Poor Law relief, and in my own district scarcely a week goes by but I receive resolutions from boards of guardians protesting against the amount of relief they are having to pay to discharged men or their dependants. I know the Minister would say, "What would you have me do; would you have every man on full pay?" So far as I see this matter, I should say the national obligation to these men is to see that they have work provided suitable to their disability or for the State to accept the full responsibility and provide them with the means to lead a respectable life—one or the other. I should prefer the suitable work. I think it, would be best for the men. But in the absence of suitable work the State has no right to evade its responsibility and to foist it on the boards of guardians and the local rates. That is what is being done.

I should like to say a word with reference to a matter which is hotly denied from that bench, but which many of us know to be a fact, and that is the gradual hardening and cutting-down policy which is being pursued by the Ministry and its officials in reference to pensions. I know that every time the matter is brought up the point is denied. I know from actual experience in the districts and among the men, without exception, that a cutting-down policy is in operation, and that men are being deprived of their just and legitimate rights. That is not a personal or party opinion. I wish the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) could come into my division and meet the board of guardians, which, at all events, is not composed of a majority of Labour men. They would tell him quite frankly what is their experience, and they would tell him they believe they have been unduly burdened because the Ministry is pursuing a cutting-down policy and is not carrying out its obligations to these men. In the area I represent, without regard to party or to politics, in asserting that these men are not being treated justly, as they are entitled to be, I speak for the whole division. I speak for employers of labour, for boards of guardians, and for everyone with whom I am brought into contact. The ex-service men themselves, and practically the whole population, are filled with bitterness and with resentment, because they feel that the ex-service man is not being treated in accordance with promises which were made to him when he was induced to enlist, and he is not being treated in accordance with the promises which were made to him at the last election, that the nation would not fail in its duty to those who had served it best.