CLAUSE 53. — (Goods insurable under the schemes) (Hansard, 25 February 1941)

§ Captain Waterhouse
I beg to move, in page 42, line 10, to leave out "or right in security."
These words were put in at an earlier stage as an Amendment in Committee to bring the wording into line, as it was thought, with Scottish law, but it is now found that they are unnecessary and I ask leave to strike them out.

§ Captain Waterhouse
I beg to move, in page 42, line 11, at the end, to insert: ( ) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—
(a) an activity shall not be deemed to be other than a business by reason only that it is of a professional nature, or that it is not carried on for gain;

(b) the carrying on of any activity by a corporation or unincorporated body of persons shall be deemed to be the carrying on of a business:
Provided that goods which would, apart from this proviso, be insurable under the business scheme in relation to a corporation sole or a body of persons who are trustees, and would be so insurable by virtue only of paragraph (b) of this Sub-section. shall in such cases as may be prescribed, be deemed not to be insurable in relation to the corporation or body of persons under the business scheme. Paragraph (a) in this Amendment will make it clear that a business includes a profession, and paragraph (b) makes it clear that corporations or unincorporated bodies of persons shall be deemed to be carrying on a business. The Amendment is put down to meet points raised at an earlier stage.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 42, line 20, at the end, to insert: "or other employee engaged for work in or about the household of the insured. The words in the Bill deal with goods "owned by or in the possession of such a member or servant." The Amendment seeks to add to that the goods of persons other than employés engaged for work in or about the house. There may be persons other than domestic servants —gardeners, for instance—who would not be covered by the Bill as it stands, and this Amendment seeks to provide that any property of theirs which happens to 436 be in the house at the time the damage was done, should also be covered.

§ Captain Waterhouse
If the people whom the hon. Member has in mind live in the house where they are domestic servants, they will be eligible for insurance; and if they do not live in the house they must live somewhere else, and they still come under the scheme. I, therefore, do not think the Amendment is necessary.

§ Mr. Silkin
If a domestic servant is not living at the house where he is employed and is living somewhere else, his goods at his employer's house are covered as well as those at home. Therefore, he is covered twice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman permits that state of affairs in one case why cannot he permit it in this case?

§ Captain Waterhouse
The intention is to avoid any duplication of insurance. A man's property will be insured either because he takes out a policy in respect of his own house, where he may have some personal chattels such as picks and shovels, or if he is living in his employer's house the employer may take out a policy and the picks and shovels will be included in that policy.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.