rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is to be the policy of the Ministry of Transport in respect to the maintenance and improvement of county highways in Scotland, and when a statement will be made in regard to the resumption of Government grants for the purpose.

My Lords, it is my intention to say but a few words in support of what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken. In the words of a well-known county councillor in the North the condition of the roads in the Highlands is at the present moment deplorable. It is a long time since any money was spent on them owing to the war and the lack of labour and the carting of timber which has been sold to the Government for war purposes. The roads are now, I think, in a worse state than that in which they have ever been. The main road from Inverness to the North—the only main road in the Highlands that goes to the North—is in a terrible state. Before the war I think we had been promised large grants from time to time, and these grants are very much more necessary now than they were at that time. If the Minister of Transport takes a holiday I hope he will motor over that road, and it will be brought home to him how impossible are the conditions as regards road transport to the North of Scotland.

As your Lordships know, there are no railways to the west and north coasts of that part of Scotland. Consequently the population is entirely dependent on the roads for postal service, for their fish and all other commodities. Various promises were made at the last Election of the wonderful things which the Highlands were going to get, but, except for the Land Settlement Bill, it does not seem to me that very much has been granted. The home life of the Highlands is just as vitally affected by the condition of the roads and railways as it is by- the question of land settlement. A primary need of the Highlands is that the transport facilities should be improved. The Highlands Reconstruction Association, of which Lord Lovat was formerly chairman, have reported on all these matters. This is an association formed by persons of all creeds and politics, and very representative of the public life of the Highlands, but not one of the resolutions passed by it has been acted upon.

The Post Office, I understand, will have under the Budget a considerable sum of money; yet no telephone is allowed in the Highlands, although in other parts of the world, in Canada, in Norway, and in Sweden, every little farmhouse has a telephone. In the Highlands of Scotland no telephone north of Tain is allowed. This policy is causing grave dissatisfaction amongst the people of the Highlands who were told during the Election of all the wonderful things they were to get. Unless this matter is attended to before the next General Election there will be a very serious turnover of votes. In fact, the Independent Liberals will probably sweep all the Highland constituencies.

My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give both my noble friends an assurance which will entirely remove any anxiety they entertain on the points mentioned. The policy of the Ministry of Transport may be stated in a very few words. With regard to the current financial year—that is to say, up to May 15 in Scotland—sums have been made available from which grants have been made or promised for the maintenance and improvement of roads in Scotland amounting to £730,010. The Minister hopes to be able to make further grants in respect of surface tarring works on important county roads during the coming season approximating to one-third of the cost of such work.

With regard to future policy, this is contained in the Budget proposals of the Government; and I think the explanation of the letter to which the noble Lord has referred is that until the Budget is passed no funds beyond those to which I have referred will be available. But it is in no sense the intention of the Ministry to make no grants in respect of the improvement and maintenance of roads until the work of classification is completed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement of April 19, estimated that the revenue from existing taxes upon motors up to December next would be £2,750,000. That sum is therefore available at once, and from that sum grants will be made to the local authorities for the maintenance of their roads exactly in the same manner as before 1916.

In January next the yield from the new duties proposed in the Budget, always provided of course that the Budget Bill is passed, will become available, and it is estimated that by March next the sum realised from these new duties will be £4,500,000, or £7,250,000 by the end of the year. I hope my noble friend follows me. There is immediately available £2,750,000 from existing taxes, and from the new duties after January next sums which are estimated to amount to £4,500,000 will be available by March next.

The Roads Department of the Ministry of Transport is now engaged upon the classification of roads in the United Kingdom. All the forms have been sent out to the highway authorities in Scotland, and they have been instructed how to proceed. It is hoped that this work of classification will be completed by the end of the year, and therefore, when the proceeds of the new taxation becomes available after January next, it is the intention of the Minister to make grants for the maintenance of the classified roads in the proportion of 50 per cent. of the cost in the case of Class 1 roads and 25 per cent. in the case of Class 2 roads. I hope that this assurance will satisfy my noble friend. He will see that there will be no hiatus, but that grants will be made from existing taxation until the new taxation becomes available, and when the new taxation becomes available it is intended that grants shall be made in respect of roads classified in Classes 1 and 2.

May I express my acknowledgments and thanks to the noble Earl for the statement he has made. It seems to me to be entirely satisfactory.

My Lords, I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can state what member of His Majesty's Government conducted the recent negotiations with the Miners' Federation; whether the sanction of the Cabinet was obtained before a settlement was reached; what were the terms of the settlement reached; what were the reasons for the settlement; what is the estimated cost of the settlement; and by whom will the cost be borne—the owners, the consumers, or the taxpayers.

My Lords, the general conduct of the recent negotiations with the Miners' Federation was entrusted to the Controller of Coal Mines, but a reference to His Majesty's Ministers proved necessary during their progress, and two interviews took place between the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation and representatives of His Majesty's Government. Among the latter were the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, and others, as well as the Controller of Coal Mines. The offer which led to the settlement was approved by the Cabinet before it was made.

The terms of the settlement were embodied in the agreement, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to the noble Earl if he so desires. It gave to colliery workers an advance of 20 per cent. on their total earnings (exclusive of "war wage" and "Sankey wage") subject to a guaranteed minimum advance at the rate of 2s. a shift (or day) for persons of 18 years of age and over, 1s. for those of 16 and 17, and 9d. for those under 16.

The claim of the Federation was based on the increase in the cost of living and on a comparison with general wages advances given in other great industries. The offer made and accepted was thought to be justified by, and adequate to meet, these considerations, having regard to the fact that the Federation agreed, in the interests of output, to abandon their claim for a flat rate advance and to accept the percentage principle. The estimated cost is £31,300,000 a year.

As was announced by the President of the Board of Trade on Monday, the Government have decided to raise the average price of inland coal to a sum which will cover the average cost of production (including this advance of wages) and the average profit per ton allowed to coal owners under the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act. It follows that the cost of the advance will be borne by the consumer.

Will the noble Viscount be good enough to explain what is meant by the words "abandon their claim for a flat rate advance and to accept the percentage principle."

I do not know that I can give any other explanation than that which I have already given. The percentage advance is, of course, a 20 per cent. advance on the total earnings subject to a minimum. A flat rate advance, is the opposite to a percentage advance.

I thought there was some relation between a percentage, advance and output, but it was not quite clearly stated. In abandoning their claim for a flat rate advance and accepting the percentage principle, how does than affect the output?

I think I must inquire about that point.

My Lords, I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether it is the fact that a further demand for an increase of wages has been made by certain representatives of the railway men; whether that demand is consistent with the agreement come to last January; what is the estimated cost of the demand; and on whom, if granted, the cost would fall, the shareholders, the public, or the taxpayer; (2) whether he can state if any negotiations are likely to take place to which His Majesty's Government will be parties, and, if so, by what Minister will they be conducted, and whether the sanction of the Cabinet will be obtained before any settlement is reached; (3) whether the negotiations, if any, will be with both the railway unions or with only one; and whether it is the case that the separate action of two railway unions makes any permanent settlement with the railway men very difficult.

With regard to the first paragraph of my noble friend's Question, it is the case that further demands for the increase of the remuneration of railway workers have been put forward by the representatives of the railwaymen. These demands are for increases in the rates of pay which, in the case of enginemen, were agreed upon in August last, and in the case of other employees engaged in working the traffic, were agreed upon in principle in January and were finally settled as to their details in March. The demands put forward by the National Union of Railwaymen are for a uniform increase of 20s. a week, which, if granted, would probably involve the payment of between £25,000,000 and £30,000,000 a year apart have the increases which would have to be given to other classes of men employed by railway companies but not engaged in working the traffic. Under the present arrangements between the Government and the railway companies, the increased cost of meeting any such demands would fall upon the Exchequer, but probably it would ultimately become necessary to increase railway charges further in order to meet them.

I pass to the second paragraph of the Question. These demands are being dealt with, in accordance with the pm edurc agreed upon in November last, between the railway employees and the Government with the consent of representatives of the companies by the Wages Boards which have been set up, and are not being dealt with by any Government Department or the Cabinet.

As to the third paragraph, demands for increased remuneration have been put forward by both the principal railway unions and are now being dealt with. It is certainly the case that, as suggested by my noble friend, the participation in negotiations such as these of more than one union that claims to represent the same class of employee adds to the difficulty of the negotiations.

The noble Earl did not answer one part of my noble friend's Question—namely, whether the sanction of the Cabinet will be obtained before any settlement is reached. He said that the negotiations are not being carried out by the Cabinet, but perhaps he did not notice the phrase in which the Question is couched.

I confess I did not, and the Ministry of Transport did not observe it either. The Cabinet will either transfer its sanction to the Wages Board and authorise them within certain limits to make an agreement, or else, having come to a provisional agreement, the sanction of the Cabinet will have to be obtained. In any case the Cabinet must retain the responsibility.

It is not quite clear whether the demand now made is consistent with the agreement come to last January, or whether it is a breach of it.

I cannot say whether it is a breach of agreement on the part of the railwaymen. These are increases upon the rates of pay which were agreed to in August of last year.

Some were made in January of this year, surely.

And some in January.

That part of my Question is directed to eliciting this fact—whether the agreement of January was for a definite period, or whether it was not; whether, in fact, the agreement left it free to the men to raise such questions at any time they chose, however soon, or whether this early revival of the question is a breach of the agreement then arrived at.

I do no know whether my noble friend is going to be in the House to-morrow afternoon. If so, I shall be glad to make a further statement upon that point.

If I am not here, one of my friends will be.

Very well, at 4.15—a Private Notice Question.