I am much indebted to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) for the lucid way in which he has raised this matter. I am also obliged to the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), who is very familiar with this problem. I have taken careful note of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), though some of them went a little wider than the issue with which I am called upon to deal to-day. When a factory is requisitioned and the owner is directed to move his machinery, compensation is paid to him under Section 2 (1, d) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. If the machinery is stored the Government pay for the cost of dismantling and storing it and of re-erecting it when it is once more possible to do so in the original premises. If the machinery is erected on an alternative site, the Government pay the cost of dismantling and of erecting it in the new premises. In either of these cases the expenses are regarded as having been necessarily incurred by the owner in complying with the directions given to him when his premises were requisitioned. The owner who has erected his machinery on an alternative site may, of course, wish at some time to re-erect the machinery on yet another site, or, if he can get possession on his original premises, to bring the machinery back there. In such a case the costs of dismantling and re-erection are not regarded as having been incurred in order to comply with the direction, and are not, therefore, the subject of compensation under this section of the Compensation Act, 1939.

In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton said, it does appear, to me that a firm which re-erects its machinery on an alternative site and continues to manufacture in those premises and can carry on its business is in a somewhat more fortunate position than firms which for many reasons are put out of business altogether and have been obliged to close down. A firm which stores its machinery when the premises are requisitioned cannot carry on its business any longer, and it can be argued that there might be grounds for giving more consideration to such a case. But the point to which objection has really been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton is that no compensation is payable for the re-erection on the original site of machinery which has been erected on an alternative site in compliance with an Order. That is a case in which, of course, the hardship cannot have been suffered as yet, but I understand that it is the practice of requisitioning authorities when they agree to a claim for expenses under this Section of the Act of 1939 to ask the claimant to agree then and there that the payment is in full and final settlement of all his claims, and that is a point which my hon. Friend has made.

I agree that it would be not unreasonable for a claimant to say at that point that he accepted it as a settlement of the expenses which had been incurred up to date, but that he reserved the right to submit claims for future expenses. The Requisitioning Department would no doubt say that they noted the claim that had been reserved, but of course they would not be accepted as admitting then and there that any claim would lie. This arrangement would, I think, meet the main difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has raised, and I will see that Requisitioning Departments are informed of this discussion and of the way in which they should act in circumstances of that kind.