I am attacking what is in the Bill, because it corresponds with no conceivable "principle upon which this problem could and ought to have been faced. However, I will not pursue that line of argument if I am out of Order. I will only say that it seems to me incumbent upon us, when we are dealing either with civil servants or with people who have served us in the past, to bring to bear upon that situation some elementary fundamental principles and then decide upon action in the light of those principles. I attack this Bill be cause it is related to no conceivable principle whatever, except the casting of an inadequate bone, to a badly starving dog. That is not the principle by which we ought to regulate the lives of those who have spent their lives in our service. There is nothing more I can say except to place on record my view. First of all, I express my scorn for people who move Amendments and then run away, rather than face up to the choice between quarrelling with their own Party or standing up for the people whose sacrifices have made it possible for them to come here. I also express my regrets for this House. By now we ought to be informed of the merits of this issue, because we discussed it in 1944 and in 1945, and we had a Second Reading discussion in 1946 and a Committee stage in 1947, so that every one of us ought, by now, to realise what are the merits of the case. In spite of that, we have adopted this Bill, which I characterise as mean, ungenerous and unworthy of the House, in relation to the treatment of people who have spent their lives in our service.