LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 26 March 1958)

§ Mr. Willis
I was referring to the discussion that we had in the Scottish Standing Committee upon the meaning of the word "land". I do not want to go over the argument, because I find upon looking up the debate that I was right about what the Lord Advocate said.
The discussion arose because of the anxiety of hon. Members opposite about salmon fishings. Certain hon. Members opposite were very concerned to preserve the rights of those fishings. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee endeavoured to point out that there were other things besides salmon fishings which affected the lives and incomes of different people. We asked why specific mention was made of salmon fishings to the exclusion of anything else, and why mineral rights should not be included. It is quite possible that mineral rights could he divorced from the ownership of the land and held by another person, and that as a result of one of these schemes being put into operation that person might lose those rights.
The learned Lord Advocate did not give us a very satisfactory reply. In fact, to be quite blunt, he dodged the issue. I do not think that he really knew what was right and what was wrong. He did not know the law in regard to this matter, and so he dodged the issue. We do not like to see the Lord Advocate dodging his responsibilities. We always try to make him face them. We want to know why we should not include mineral rights. They are just as important to their owners as are salmon fishings to the people who own them. I suggest that if the right hon. and learned Member wants the Bill to he just and to give everyone a fair deal he should pay attention to people other than those who are interested simply in salmon fishings.

§ The Lord Advocate
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has reintroduced us to the old point raised in the Standing Committee, namely, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

§ Mr. Willis
In view of the fact that I have not Trayner's "Latin Maxims" with me, perhaps the right hon. and learned Member would translate.

§ The Lord Advocate
Certainly; it means, "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another". He pointed out, quite rightly, that if mineral rights were not comprised in the land they would not be included. I must ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment, because it is unnecessary. Minerals are included in the word "land". A person who is the owner of minerals is the owner of land. If a person is a tenant of minerals he is an occupier of land. Accordingly, anybody with an interest in minerals—namely, the people whom the hon. Member is anxious to protect—would be included, for compensation purposes, either as the owner or occupier of land.
The position is different in regard to salmon fishings, because, although they are a heritable right, they are not land. I am sure that the Committee does not want me to go into a long discussion and to read treatises about mineral rights and so forth. If we take the view that minerals are land sufficient security is provided for the owner or occupier.

§ Mr. Willis
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us the authority for this? In Committee he was most particular to bring with him a copy of the 1889 Interpretation Act, and was most careful to read to us from that Act what the expression "land" included, and there was no mention of mineral rights in that definition. I therefore assume that it is not under that Act that he makes his pronouncement, but as a result either of a legal decision or some other Act. Will he tell us what it is?

§ The Lord Advocate
Minerals in the land are part of the land and, being part of the land, are land. Doubt might arise whether something built on land, such as a house, was part of the land and, in order to make the position quite clear, special provision was made in the 1889 Act, with which we had such fun in Committee. But minerals, being buried in the land, are part of it, and fall within the description of "land".

§ Mr. Woodburn
I am intrigued by this question. Some time ago I read in a newspaper, a letter written by a man who had bought a new house. He said that he 479 had always been under the impression that land consisted of earth, but when he started to dig his garden he found old tin cans, bricks, bottles and every conceivable article. Is the Lord Advocate now telling us that all those things are land and that the man was under a misapprehension in thinking that land was earth?

§ The Lord Advocate
The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me to have a discussion as to whether a thing which is stuck into the land ultimately becomes part of the land. Obviously, some loose things lying in the land would not be treated as land, although technically they might be.

§ Mr. Lawson
Does the term "salmon fishings" include trout fishings? This matter is of great importance in rivers such as the Clyde, where there is extensive trout fishing.

§ The Lord Advocate
No. Salmon fishing, being a heritable right, is quite separate from trout fishing. Trout fishing is not a right in the sense that salmon fishing is. If we wish to catch trout, we are entitled to go to the place where we think they are to be caught.

§ Mr. Willis
In view of the much better explanation that the Lord Advocate has now given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Lord John Hope
I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, at the end to insert: (2) For the purpose of construing references in this Act to agricultural land situated in an improvement area a change in the use of any land so situated occurring after the making of the improvement order in question shall be disregarded. An improvement area, when the order which defines it is first made, will unquestionably comprise agricultural land to be improved and, incidentally, may comprise other land which may be waste land. Ownership of the agricultural land comprised in the area will carry with it, for instance, a duty to contribute to the cost of the execution and maintenance of drainage works.
Land to which such an obligation attaches may, over the years, cease to be used as agricultural land. It may possibly be used for building, for housing or industrial purposes, but the obligation 480 should not cease to be enforceable because the use of the land has changed. Put shortly, the intention is that such land shall continue to be treated as agricultural land for the purposes of the Bill.