asked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what date it was decided that 20 per cent. of the pay and pensions of naval officers was to be based upon the cost-of-living figure, as calculated by the Ministry of Labour; whether any apportunity was ever afforded naval officers of deciding whether the basing of such proportion of their pay on this figure was agreeable to them; and, if not, whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that now exists amongst such officers as to the discrepancy between the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index figure and their actual living costs, both at home and on foreign stations, he will consider the desirability of evolving a special cost-of-living index which will more fairly reflect the actual living costs of such officers?

The decision to subject 20 per cent. of the pay and pension of Naval officers to periodical revision in accordance with the cost-of-living was part of the decision of His Majesty's Government whereby increased rates of pay and pensions were introduced in 1919. The decision published in Command Paper 270 of 1919 provided that the basis of revision should be the Board of Trade food prices index number. When occasion first arose for applying the principle of revision in 1924, attention was drawn by departmental representatives to the peculiar unsuitability of food prices as an index to the cost-of-living of officers, and it was accordingly decided to substitute the cost-of-living index numbers of the Ministry of Labour, on the basis of which the 1924 and subsequent revisions have been carried out. I am not aware that Naval officers were taken into consultation about this change, but I would point out that as the Board of Trade food prices index has been consistently lower than the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index, the effect of the alteration was in the interest of the officers concerned. In regard to the last part of the question, I can only repeat that this question is applicable to the remuneration of public servants generally, and it is impossible to regard Naval officers as having a claim for separate treatment.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of the upkeep of the East Indies squadron; and what contribution India or any Dominion or Colony makes towards it?

The Government of India pays an annual contribution of £100,000 towards ale cost of the ships employed in the Persian Gulf and off the coasts of India for Indian purposes: in addition, it pays the cost of the fuel consumed by certain ships employed in the Persian Gulf, and also that of repairs to H.M.S. "Triad," one of those ships. The annual cost of maintenance of the ships composing the East Indies Squadron (excluding the cost of the fuel paid for by the Government of India and that of the repairs to H.M.S. "Triad") is £770,690.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of all the treaties with other countries which would compel the British Government to control the quantitative production of food in Britain should the Government feel it necessary to impose quantitative control on foreign food imports; and whether he will give the names of the countries affected by these treaties and the dates when each treaty was made?

There are three treaties in force which would preclude the quantitative control of foreign food imports unless the production, distribution or consumption of similar foods in the United Kingdom was also controlled. The instruments in question are the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 2nd December, 1924, the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions of 8th November, 1927 (to which, in addition to the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, and Norway are parties), and the Anglo-Persian Tariff Autonomy Treaty of 10th May, 1928, which, though not yet ratified, is provisionally in force. So long as any of these instruments remain in operation, His Majesty's Government would be precluded from applying control to imports from any foreign country with which commercial treaties containing a most-favoured-nation clause are in force, except under the same condition.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons have found employment with the 144 new undertakings which have been established in Great Britain since November last; how many of the new undertakings are in Yorkshire; and how many persons are employed?

The 144 new undertakings, which have been established in this country by, or with the assistance of, foreign concerns, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 4th July, were at the end of June giving employment to approximately 5,000 workpeople. Four of these undertakings, employing 170 people, are in Yorkshire.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of railway tickets, by classes, which have been sold

asked the Minister of Labour the reasons for extending the permit of the German employé at Brettle works, Belper, and the reasons for the employment of another German mechanic at the same works and is he aware that

The following statements give the information for which my hon. Friend asks in the form in which it is available.no Belper workman has been trained in any special process during the past 12 months?

These German employés are technical experts in the working of a particular German machine. They were allowed to come to this country for the purpose of assisting in the manufacture of the machines here and supervising their erection and working, as my right hon. Friend was satisfied that no British subject was available with similar qualifications. There are about 30 British subjects working under their immediate supervision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recommended assistance from the Colonial Development Fund to the erection of a sugar refinery in Jamaica has since been withdrawn; and, if not, whether he is satisfied that it is desirable to assist from British funds the develop- ment in Colonies of industries which wards this scheme was withdrawn in directly compete with existing industries August, 1931, because the promoters had in Great Britain?

The assistance which has been approved to- wards this scheme was withdrawn in August, 1931, because the promoters had found it necessary to abandon the scheme temporarily for reconsideration of its financial arrangements. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.