Requisitioned Premises (Compensation).

Oral Answers to Questions — Trade and Commerce. – in the House of Commons on 9th June 1942.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sir Granville Gibson Sir Granville Gibson , Pudsey and Otley

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists among firms whose premises have been requisitioned that under a ruling made by his Department no compensation will be payable towards the cost of dismantling machinery and re-erecting it in the requisitioned premises at the termination of their occupation by a Government Department; and will be reconsider the ruling made, in view of the additional expense to which such firms will be put in returning to their own premises?

Photo of Sir Kingsley Wood Sir Kingsley Wood , Woolwich West

The compensation payable in respect of the requisitioning of premises is governed by Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act. If premises are requisitioned and the owner is directed to remove any machinery therein and decides to store it, the cost of dismantling, transporting and storing it elsewhere, together with the cost of subsequently re-erecting it in the premises is paid. If, however, the owner decides to re-erect it elsewhere, the cost of dismantling, transporting and re-erecting in the new premises is paid, but in that event the cost of a second dismantling and re-erection cannot be treated, under Section 2 (1, d) of the Act as an expense incurred for the purpose of compliance with a direction by the Government.

Photo of Sir Granville Gibson Sir Granville Gibson , Pudsey and Otley

Do I understand that, if a man wishes to reinstate machinery at the end of the war in premises from which he has been dispossessed, the expenses will be paid?

Photo of Sir Kingsley Wood Sir Kingsley Wood , Woolwich West

Yes, Sir, under the circumstances laid down in my answer.