Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I rise tentatively to make a point on the form of declaration, which contains a reference to the monarch. In the previous clause, an attempt has been made to try to broaden the base of

those who are eligible to serve in the police force, which I wholly support. The points made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and others about commitment to this country are absolutely right, and the Minister appears to share that view, as, I suspect, do we all.

Those who have already taken nationality would not by covered by clause 67. That is designed to attract people who have been living in this country for some time, who have shown a deep commitment to the country and who have a satisfactory status, but who are not British citizens. Many such people would not be British citizens because they chose not to take the required oath when they took up residency. Many famous people fall into that category either because they are republicans or think that they might want to return whence they came when they reach 65 or 70. Consequently, they do not want to take the ultimate step of swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Do the terms of the form of declaration undermine the Government's attempts through clause 67 to attract people who are committed to this country but have not taken British nationality for one reason or another?

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that deleting the words ''the Queen'' would harm in any way the policing function of a person who swore such an amended oath?

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I think that the form of declaration would be robust without those words and would perform the desired function. The person who swore the declaration would be committed to acting with fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality and so on. That is a satisfactory oath that meets the high standards that we require of a police officer in this country. Without being disrespectful, the phrase is unnecessary and undermines the Government's attempts to attract people who, for their own reasons, do not wish to take British nationality. If people had taken British nationality, they would not be covered by clause 67.

I did not table an amendment on the matter, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Before we pass on from this clause, I want the Minister to explain why the oath is being changed. I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on the matter.

The oath has long referred to carrying out the office,

''without favour or affection, malice or ill will''.

That is a poetic form of words, but it has been replaced by a thoroughly modern, new Labour phrase. The new oath refers to carrying out the office

''with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people''.

Why is it necessary to change a form of words that has served us well, and which reflects the history of our language? That change is similar to opting for the modern, rather than the traditional, form of marriage vows.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Unlike the Government and their Back Benchers, I am not obsessed with the cult of modernisation. I entered this House to uphold the traditional virtues of this country. I hope that the Minister has a good explanation for this change. I do not like getting rid of things hallowed by tradition and usage, unless there is a very good reason for doing so, and I would prefer to keep the traditional language. A parallel can be drawn between this change and the difference between the King James Bible, with which many of us grew up, and the appalling modern grammar of some new versions of the Bible. [Interruption.] I prefer the traditional version of the oath, as do most police officers. They will not be encouraged by this watering-down of the language.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

Order. It is difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because of the continual susurration from the Government Benches.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to you, Miss Widdecombe.

I am delighted if I am provoking ire on the Government Back Benches, because one of the Opposition's most important tasks is to defend the traditions of this country against the raging cult of modernisation. I will not labour that point, because there are other matters to raise. However, I hear encouragement from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), and I am sure that he also wishes to express his views on the subject.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

I wish to add two points to the compendious case that has already been put to the Minister. I want him to justify the exclusion from the modern, politically correct, organic version of the oath of the words,

''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'',

and ''Her Majesty's subjects''. Is some subtle constitutional agenda in play here? Does the new oath envisage an attenuation of Her Majesty's sovereignty? Is the requirement of conformity with the treaty of Maastricht, or something similar, the reason why we are no longer allowed to refer to ''Her Majesty's subjects''?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I fear that I must remind my newsagent to deliver The Spectator this week, so that I can read what the hon. Gentleman has written.

I find myself in the middle ground between the rampant republicanism of the Liberal Democrats and the die-hard conservatism of the official Opposition. Some important points must be made on the matter.

One of the unique characteristics of the police service in this country is that police officers are servants of the Crown—they are not servants of this Government, the previous Government, or the future Government. That gives them a unique constitutional position, as we have discussed in debates on other topics. Unlike teachers and other public servants, police officers are not employees. As servants of the Crown, they have more in common with members of the armed forces than with any other group of public

servants. It is important to have an oath that retains that unique nature of the police service.

The reasons for the change are twofold. Anyone who is not prepared to swear an oath that they will serve the Queen, as all other police constables do, will exclude themselves from entry to the police service. There may be a category of people, as the hon. Gentleman said, who would like to join the police service but are not prepared to swear the oath, and they could not be accepted. Equally, however, citizens of other countries who owe their duty of citizenship to another Head of State or nation state would have difficulty in swearing an oath of allegiance to the sovereign of another country. The wording of the oath, on which Buckingham palace has been fully consulted, enables all police officers to swear to serve the Queen but avoids citizens of other countries having to swear a constitutional oath that they could not make.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Is it not time that we owned up to the constitutional fiction that the police are servants of the monarch? They are servants of the people.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

That would be an interesting debate and I invite my Friend to seek an Adjournment debate on the matter at a time of his choosing.

Something that strikes me quite forcibly and, I suspect, my hon. Friend, because of his knowledge of law, is that for the vast majority of police officers their status as servants of the Queen is enormously important. That applies to police officers with a huge range of private views on political issues and so on. It is part of the status that they value enormously. We do not want to change that, nor do we want a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers who are British citizens swear one oath and others swear another.

The second point of the hon. Member for Henley concerned the change from Her Majesty's subjects to people and property. The reality is that we would expect an American tourist in London who was the victim of crime to receive the same quality of service, respect and treatment as a British citizen who was the victim of crime. The wording of the traditional oath—I understand what was said about the language—is technically restricted to British citizens and that is not the way in which we want our police service to operate. The broadening of its range of responsibilities is reflected in the oath.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

Could the Minister clarify why the phrase

''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen''

has been removed? Is that because the phrase might stick in the craw of some foreign policeman or a republican? Is the purpose of the change to attenuate the sincerity of the oath?

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

The issue is the difficulty that arises for people who may be prepared to promise to serve the Queen as police officers but would find it difficult to swear to the sovereignty of the Queen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.