§ Sir Granville Gibson
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, if premises are requisitioned and the owner has to remove machinery and decides to store it, the cost of dismantling, transporting and storing it and the cost of subsequently re-erecting it in the premises is paid; and why, if the owner decides not to store it but to erect and use it in temporary premises, the cost of subsequently re-erecting it in the original premises is not paid and treated under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act as expenditure incurred in complying with a direction by the Government just as much as in the former case?
§ Sir K. Wood
The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I am advised that if in consequence of the requisition of premises the occupier is directed to remove his machinery, its removal and its installation elsewhere are regarded as an expense incurred for the purpose of compliance with a direction given in connection with the taking of possession of the premises; compensation is accordingly paid under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Compensation (Defence) Act. Any further dismantling and re-erection cannot be regarded as being in compliance with such a direction and no compensation is therefore payable in respect thereof.