This page lists every recorded use of the words injurious and injuriously in parliamentary debate during 1930. Each instance is reproduced in its context as recorded in Hansard.
This survey forms part of the evidence for the correct legal interpretation of injurious weeds in the Weeds Act 1959. See also why “harmful weeds” misrepresents the law.
| Speaker | Context |
|---|---|
| VISCOUNT HAILSHAM | Where it is necessary for the public good to take land or injuriously to affect property by interfering with private rights, then, of course, the public interest prevails, the private right has to be subordinated to the public good, but the individual who is being injured for the public good is compensated by the public Exchequer. |
| THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY | So your Lordships, in Committee, put in these words: the Commissioners shall not confirm a scheme unless satisfied it "will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking." That is to say, there shall be no injury done unless the particular injured undertaking is fully bought out and so compensated for any injury which may be caused to it. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | If your Lordships will turn to Clause 1, you will see that all buildings may be condemned in a clearance area and (this is the important point) not only because they are unfit for human habitation—of course we perfectly understand that a building which is unfit for human habitation should be condemned—but also because of the narrowness or the bad arrangement of the streets causing them to be dangerous or injurious. |
| THE DUKE OF MONTROSE | There can be no doubt that this unlimited and unrestricted importation is injurious to the labour interest in this country. |
| THE DUKE OF MONTROSE | Until that is done I think it is a mistake to continue to allow unrestricted and unlimited free imports from abroad if they are injurious to our own trade. |
| LORD PARMOOR | The general scheme, so far as the improvement areas are concerned—they are not, of course, the clearance areas—is that for an area to be made into an improvement area you must no only have conditions which are dangerous and injurious to the health of the inhabitants by reason of the disrepair or sanitary defects of the dwelling-houses therein, but there must also be one or other of two conditions. |
| LORD BUCKMASTER | As the Bill stands, it provides that you cannot act under this section unless two things are established and yet one of these things alone is that the housing conditions are dangerous or injurious to 581 the health of the inhabitants by reason of the disrepair or sanitary defects of the property. |
| LORD BUCKMASTER | Why you are going to condemn people to live under conditions that are dangerous or injurious to their health simply because you say they are not overcrowded is one of the mysteries I am utterly unable to solve. |
| VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME | The words in Clause 1 are "by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." If it is alleged that because of this the houses are "dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area," those houses will not be marked blue and the owners will not get any compensation. |
| THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK | On this point we cannot hut recall that the property has been condemned because the conditions existing in the area, and being due to the state of the property itself, are injurious to health. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | The noble Lord did explain in answer to a question that as far as possible islands would be made in these clearance areas, which would not include such houses, but where they are included in clearance areas the houses which are to he compensated at bare site value will have to be specified as being injurious for human habitation or dangerous to health. |
| THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASEFIELD) | I ask the noble Lord to trust me when I say that it would be injurious to the end which he, and we, have in view, if we had to put down in black and white, and publish to the world, the various letters which have passed. |
| LORD PARMOOR | The effect of the proviso is that after the passing of this Bill this subsection shall not apply in the case of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of the Bill which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. |
| LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM | of the Third Schedule says this— "If the arbitrator is satisfied with respect to any premises that the rental thereof was enhanced by reason of their being used for illegal purposes, or being so overcrowded as to be dangerous or injurious to the health of the inmates, the compensation shall, so far as it is based on rental, lie based on the rental which would have been obtainable if the premises were occupied for legal purposes and only by the number of persons whom the premises were, under all the circumstances of the case, fitted to accommodate without such overcrowding. |
| LORD MARLEY | If, in fact, the neglect of the tenant has been carried on over such a long period of years that the house has become dangerous and injurious to health, surely the 821 landlord must bear some responsibility for having so badly minded his property that he has not kept an eye on the tenant? |
| LORD MARLEY | After all, the question of property management does come in here, and when the property has come to such a state that it is injurious to health, perhaps on account of the ignorance of the tenant, you must be able to compel repairs to the house. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | He might then claim that the house was injurious to health, and charge the landlord for the repair. |
| LORD LAMINGTON | No reason is given why bad papering or bad distempering would be injurious to health. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | What he said was this—I do not see him in his place but I hope I interpret him correctly—that he did not wish, and he did not think anybody wished, to compensate people whose houses were unfit for human habitation, and he went on to say that a person who has a house which is in perfect order, but, through no fault on his part, is in a situation inconvenient or injurious to health from the narrowness of the street, should not be penalised simply because of the situation of the house. |
| LORD PARMOOR | This method of compensation only affects a house which is dangerous or injurious to health. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | I said a house which is injurious to health because the owner does not keep it in repair is not worth anything, and should be compensated at site value only. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | But, in the case of a house in perfect repair, because somebody has built a wall against it, which he could not prevent, and which, therefore, affects the light and is injurious to health, it is very unfair that he should be made to pay for his neighbour's delinquencies. |
| LORD PARMOOR | The assumption here is that the building—not another building affecting this building, but the building about which we are talking—from its proximity to other houses and the narrowness of the street, is in itself injurious to health. |
| LORD PARMOOR | The question is this—supposing you have a house which is injurious to health owing to its effect on other houses in the clearance sale area and do not proceed by way of purchase, they may make, of course, for this particular house a demolition order. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | The obligations of the landlord in regard to repairs are set out at very considerable length and in very great detail in the principal Act, and I suggest that "disrepair" in regard to internal painting and papering or distempering should only be included when it is injurious or dangerous to the health 942 of the occupants. |
| THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD) | The clauses as they now stand may be taken to represent the best that can be done by those expert in the subject to counteract and to prevent that avoidance of taxation which has grown up—there are several forms of it which are dealt with in this Bill, as your Lordships will know—and, at the same time, care has been taken that these new provisions should not either improperly interfere with the proper course of business or injuriously affect individuals who are not engaged in the endeavour to avoid taxation. |
| LORD PARMOOR | Perhaps I had better read the proviso:— "Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is injurious or 1120 dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act." That means that as regards premises which were acquired before 1919 the present basis of compensation, based upon what is called site value, should not be applied. |
| LORD PARMOOR | That is a very important consideration, and, after all, I cannot see myself why an owner should get better compensation because he has enjoyed the rents of a slum area which is injurious to the health of the inhabitants for a longer period of time. |
| LORD PARMOOR | But when we come down to the real justice of the position, why should you give heavier compensation because the owner has been longer in possession of a property injurious to health, and, therefore, obtaining profits, such as they are, from the ownership of property of that kind? |
| LORD PARMOOR | The general principal is that disrepairs do not come under consideration except so far as they cause the house to be regarded as injurious to health. |
| LORD PARMOOR | Subsection (3) provides that:— "In determining for this purpose of this Act whether a house is fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to the extent, if any, to which by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects the house falls short of the provisions of any by-laws in operation in a district, or the general standard of housing accommodation for the working classes of that district." So far as I know, that is the only case where the word "disrepair" is used apart from the main clauses; in Clause 1 for instance, where, in order to bring a house within the clearance area site principle, the disrepair must be such as to be injurious to its sanitary condition and to the health of the occupier. |
| LORD PARMOOR | If I might refer to the words in order to show the difference between what the noble Earl thinks right and what we should accept, the noble Earl says that the expression "disrepair" includes such deficiency arising from the default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering, or distempering walls as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupier. |
| LORD PARMOOR | It is not in itself necessarily injurious to health, but it is an element to be taken into consideration. |
| LORD PARMOOR | What I pointed out was that "disrepair" had already been defined as something injurious to health, but as regards this particular section "disrepair" was dealt with in Clause 3 in clear language of its own. |
| LORD PARMOOR | The words of the clause are:— ".… by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area." |
| LORD PARMOOR | In the first place I think he forgets that for a house to come within what is called a clearance area at all it must, to use the words of the Bill, be "dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area." Therefore there can be no doubt whatever that as regards— |
| LORD PARMOOR | No house can come within the clearance area unless it is dangerous or injurious to health either from its position or from its own inherent sanitary deficiencies. |
| LORD PARMOOR | No one doubts further that if the house does not come within that definition of being dangerous or injurious to health it would be excluded. |
| EARL PEEL | He talked about houses that were injurious to health. |
| EARL PEEL | You are now going to say to the owner of such a house that the house is injurious to health, not on its own account, or because of anything he has done or any neglect to repair it, but simply because other people have, if you like, created a nuisance round it. |
| EARL PEEL | In the case that we are considering it may possibly become, in a sense, injurious to health because of the buildings that have grown 1133 up round it, but surely, in that case, it is not too much for us to ask that a higher rate of compensation should be paid to the owner of such a house than to the owners of the other houses which have caused the injury for which the owner of this particular house is not responsible. |
| THE EARL OF ONSLOW | As the noble and learned Lord has said, the alternative Amendment is the same wording except up to the word "walls," and the only difference between us is whether or not the words "is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupant" should be put in after the word "walls." The noble and learned Lord says that the Amendment which he has proposed means 1138 exactly the same thing, when read with other parts of the Bill, as my Amendment. |
| LORD PARMOOR | : My Lords, what I suggested was this, that in certain clauses of the Bill—take Clause 1 as a very good illustration—"disrepair" is used in the sense of disrepair such as would make the house unsuitable or injurious to health. |
| LORD DANESFORT | Therefore, I venture to urge the Government to restore the clauses of the Bill and to give the persons who are affected, and who consider themselves injuriously affected by the decision of the Minister, that right of appeal to the tribunal which the Commission recommended. |
| VISCOUNT NOVAR | : My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons Amendment to page 37, line 14, and proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof: line 14, leave out from "includes" to "and" in line 20 and insert "such deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the inhabitants." That Motion, again, is in 1196 tended to bring the Scottish Bill into line with the English Bill according to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend the Earl of Onslow. |
| LORD TEMPLEMORE | We really believe that the connection is injurious for the country, and we resent, and are entitled to resent, especially in a debate like this, any insinuation that we are actuated in that matter merely by Party politics. |
| THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR) | Under this clause power is given to the owner or occupier of a piece of land to serve a notice on another owner responsible for flooding that is injurious to the former's land. |
| EARL DE LA WARR | I may say that it has been suggested to me privately by certain of your Lordships that it is unfortunate that we should attempt to protect the grey seal because it is harmful to fish, but, so far as we are able to ascertain, it is not the grey seal which is injurious to fishing, but the common seal. |
| VISCOUNT ELIBANK | at which our Dominions and Colonies can produce it, and at prices which are injurious therefore to this country and to the Dominions and Colonies. |
| LORD PASSFIELD | : If the noble Viscount thinks that had he been there he would have subscribed to the principle of a tax on wheat and then have sent it to be considered as to whether it was practicable, whether it was injurious or what the effect of it would be—after he had subscribed to it—I do not think his conduct would have been commended. |
| Loan ARNOLD | It has not been proved that 585 dumping might take place in an injurious way. |
| LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE | It would have the effect of giving an absolute right to all owners of property who considered that their property was injuriously affected by a scheme to have the matter, with the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid, decided by an official arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act of 1919. |
| LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM | It seems to me to be a most injurious provision. |
| LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE | A far greater restriction can be imposed by plans under that Act than is possible under this Bill, and although this section of the Town Planning Acts has been on the Statute Book for over 20 years, it has never been questioned that the words "injuriously affected" are not wide enough to cover all the restrictions that can be imposed. |
| LORD DANESFORT | We have this afternoon passed an Amendment to Clause 1 that "Any person whose property is injuriously affected by the coming into force of a preservation scheme shall be entitled to obtain compensation in respect thereof from the Commissioners, subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act." There is nothing in the Bill to say where this compensation is to come from. |
| LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE | The Bill lays it down that a person whose property is injuriously affected by preservation schemes is entitled to compensation subject to arbitration under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. |
| LORD POLWARTH | It is in part as follows:— "No person shall exhibit or permit or cause to be exhibited any advertisement so as (a) To affect injuriously the amenities of a public park"— That is not so difficult, because one can quite well define a particular public park which it is desired to protect; but the second and third paragraphs are as follows:— "(b) To disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape or (c) To disfigure or injuriously affect the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway or from any public place or water," Those, one must admit, are much more vague. |
| LORD POLWARTH | It is in part as follows:— "No person shall exhibit or permit or cause to be exhibited any advertisement so as (a) To affect injuriously the amenities of a public park"— That is not so difficult, because one can quite well define a particular public park which it is desired to protect; but the second and third paragraphs are as follows:— "(b) To disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape or (c) To disfigure or injuriously affect the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway or from any public place or water," Those, one must admit, are much more vague. |
| THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY) | Section 2 (2) provides that any local authority may make by-laws "for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such mariner, or by such means, as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape." 1181 That Act has been modified by an Act passed six years ago, under which the powers of the local authority under the original Act "….shall include powers to make by-laws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect the view of rural scenery front a highway or railway, or from any public place or water;" and a number of other places. |
| THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY) | Section 2 (2) provides that any local authority may make by-laws "for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such mariner, or by such means, as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape." 1181 That Act has been modified by an Act passed six years ago, under which the powers of the local authority under the original Act "….shall include powers to make by-laws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect the view of rural scenery front a highway or railway, or from any public place or water;" and a number of other places. |
| THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY) | The by-laws say this:— "No person shall exhibit or permit or cause to be exhibited any advertisements so as 1182 "(a) To affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade.…" There is no possible objection to that; we are entirely in favour of it. |
| THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY) | (c) To disfigure or injuriously affect the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway or from any public place or water." That is simply a reproduction of the words of the Act. |
| LORD MARLEY | This was the suggested alternative form:— "No person shall in any of the areas hereinafter specified exhibit any advertisement on any hoarding, stand, wall, or similar erection, or any rock or cliff so as to be visible from any public park or pleasure promenade and to affect injuriously the amenities of such park or promenade or so as to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape." The Secretary added that local authorities would require to take the chance of having such a by-law disallowed in the Courts. |
| THE EARL OF CRAWFORD | The definition speaks of disfiguring natural beauty or injuriously affecting a view. |
| THE EARL OF CRAWFORD | From my point of view, I think it is a matter of taste whether a particular advertisement injuriously affects a particular bit of scenery. |
| THE EARL OF CRAWFORD | The local authorities have this duty imposed upon them of settling the very question of whether this view or that is one that might be or is being injuriously affected by advertisements. |
| THE EARL OF LINDSAY | I will for a moment deal broadly with the charge that is being brought that this Bill would be very injurious to the iron and steel trades and the railways. |
| VISCOUNT HEREFORD | So far from looking upon this Bill as injurious and one to be opposed, I think, at any rate from the Second Reading point of view, it is worthy of support, although there are things in it which necessarily will have to be altered by your Lordships in order to make it a better Bill than it is at present. |
| THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR) | Perhaps I may read one passage from what he said: "So far from looking upon this Bill, as injurious and one to be opposed, I think, at any rate from the Second Reading point of view, it is worthy of support." He also thanked the Government, for paying to the Yorkshire coal owners the compliment of adopting the standard of hours of work which, he says: "we have practised ever since the Eight Hours Act was passed, and we are also rather grateful to them for the way they have adopted the marketing scheme." That is not the only testimony of coal owners in favour of this Bill. |
| THE MARQUESS OF READING | The Party in another place was convinced that it was injurious to the public and that sufficient protection had not been given to the consumer, whose interests ought undoubtedly to weigh very much with us. |
| VISCOUNT HAILSHAM | The second new point is that the Commission has to be satisfied that the proposals— "will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking." That is to say, that you shall not compel a man to come into an amalgamation when you are thereby going to injure him financially. |
| VISCOUNT HAILSHAM | If you are going to compel him to come in, and the terms which you impose upon him would be financially injurious to him, he has a right to say, "If you wish to amalgamate me, and you are not willing to put me in as good a financial position as if you had not compulsorily amalgamated me, you must buy me out at a fair price." A very similar provision is contained in the Companies Acts, in which case, where there is an amalgamation between companies, provision is made for the protection of dissenting shareholders, that they can be bought out at a fair price. |
| EARL RUSSELL | The scheme is not to be confirmed if it is financially injurious unless it contains provisions for the purchase. |
| EARL RUSSELL | They have quite clearly to be satisfied that it is financially injurious and if they are satisfied of that no doubt they would apply the powers which they already have as to buying out. |
| THE EARL OF MIDLETON | He has never helped your Lordships by giving any idea what his Party would do, but has left a state of things which we all agree has become injurious to the public service. |
| LORD MELCHETT | It is one of the most injurious and worst Budgets the world has ever seen. |
Injurious weeds and the law | Why “harmful weeds” misrepresents the law