§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. ThorntonI beg to move Amendment No. 44, Clause 19, in page 15, line 35, after "provisions" to insert:
(except section 13 of this Act)".The effect of this Amendment is to disapply, as far as domestic servants are concerned, Clause 13, which defines the position as to entitlement to redundancy payment where a business changes hands. The underlying principle of Clause 13 is that a change of ownership of a business should not give rise to redundancy payments providing that the employee's job remains in being but that where the new employer simply buys the premises and conducts a different business in them the employee should be entitled to payment from the old employer even if the new employer is willing to offer him fresh employment.We think that a change of householder where a domestic servant is employed should be regarded as a change in occupancy of the premises and not as a change in ownership of the business. If it were 1740 treated as ownership of a business, the effect would be that the incoming householder, if he kept on the employee, would be taking over her accumulated right to redundancy payment and would be liable, if the employee subsequently became redundant, for a payment in respect of her service with the previous householder as well as with him.
We think that this would be unacceptable. The position, therefore, under the Amendment will be that domestic employees will be entitled to redundancy payment from the outgoing householder whether or not she is re-employed by any one taking the house over. I think that this is reasonable in view of the particularly close relationship between employer and employee in such employment and is fair to the householders concerned.
§ Amendment agreed to.