HC Deb 14 July 1942 vol 381 cc1077-9
60. Mr. R. J. Taylor

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction created by the recent regulation which defines the payment for fire-watching of business premises; and does he propose to remove the cause of this dissatisfaction?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Ellen Wilkinson)

Subsistence allowance is intended to cover additional expense incurred through fire-prevention duties, and there is therefore no justification for its payment where a man performs those duties in premises situated in the building where he lives or in adjoining or neighbouring buildings where premises therein are included in joint arrangements. My right hon. Friend is therefore not prepared to modify the amendment on this subject recently made in the Business Premises Order.

Mr. Taylor

But does my hon. Friend not consider it very strange indeed that the payment of 3s. a night should be made to one business man who is the owner and not living on his business premises, but is residing close to the place where the watching has to be done, whereas another man who is living on his own premises is not to be paid? Does it not seem paradoxical?

Miss Wilkinson

I think if the hon. Member looks at the explanation he will see that the situation was gravely abused. Some employers living on their premises put themselves and their families down as fire watchers, although they never left their beds, and yet claimed the 3s., and we therefore decided that a business man watching his own premises was in no different position from a member of a street fire party watching his own house, among others, and he does not get any subsistence allowance.

Mr. Taylor

But does not the hon. Lady see that where a payment is not made, a business man need not leave his own premises to go fire watching?

Miss Wilkinson

If he is watching his own premises and is at the same time part of a street party watching his own premises he must do exactly what that party does. The whole scheme has been that a business man is in no different position from an ordinary householder if his own premises are included in the group that is being watched.