I feel as though we have discussed the subject of Crown employment and nationality before. When I looked at my records, I found that I was not wrong. Indeed, new clause 1 has been put forward in similar terms on previous occasions, using the iterative process. That concept is well known to Mr. Dismore, as I cannot recall how many times this Bill has been before the House. Each time, the Bill has been an improvement on its previous incarnation, but it still lacks that extra ingredient of new clause 1, which would improve the Bill enormously.

New clause 1 introduces the concept of natural justice into these procedures rather than requiring them to rely on a ministerial fiat. If there is no right of appeal, people may rightly feel aggrieved. This is the last time that I shall draw the analogy today, but some Members of this House feel that they should have a right of appeal against the rulings of Sir Thomas Legg. I think that the House is likely to find some means of ensuring that there is such a system of appeal, and it is in exactly the same spirit that I tabled the new clause. People who are aggrieved as a result of a decision by the Government under the terms of clause 2 will ask "What can I do about this? Am I unable to obtain any remedy for the Minister's decision?" I consider that it would be reasonable, and in accordance with the system of British fairness and justice, to enable that to happen.

A significant number of people will be affected by clause 2. I understand that if Government amendment 1 -which deals with reserved posts-is accepted, as many as 5 per cent. of all civil service posts may be affected. I stand to be corrected on that figure, but in view of the size of the civil service at present, we are talking about potentially tens of thousands of posts.

We no longer have full employment, as we did when the hon. Gentleman first presented the Bill. We now have a desperate and significantly increasing level of unemployment. I believe that, in the last year, unemployment has effectively doubled in my constituency. Against that background, we should expect many more applicants for any such posts than there may have been in the past. There is scope for many more people to be disappointed, and therefore many more people will feel that their rights have been trampled on. New clause 1 offers a safety valve by allowing appeals to be made to the tribunal.

I know that my right hon. Friend Mr. Knight-who could not be present today-is enthusiastic about the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend Philip Davies for supporting it today.

Government amendment 1 effectively rewrites clause 2 by removing the generalities contained in lines 13 to 16 and explaining the concept of reserved posts much more specifically. The Government are suggesting that reserved posts should include

"a post in any of the security and intelligence services".

I do not think any Member present would disagree with that proposal. They also suggest that a post should be designated a "reserved post" if

"it is within subsection (1B) or (1C), and a Minister of the Crown has determined that it is necessary for requirements as to nationality to be satisfied in relation to the post."

That brings in posts within the

"Diplomatic Service and posts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office" and also

"posts in the Defence Intelligence Staff", which, together, cover a significant number of posts.

If the Minister were to decide that it is necessary for nationality requirements to be satisfied in relation to those posts, that could have significant implications for people who wanted to apply, hence the importance of new clause 1 in order to satisfy applicants that justice has been done, the rule of law has been applied and decisions are not arbitrary. That is important because one way of challenging arbitrary decisions by Government is by seeking judicial review, but that process is extremely long-winded, very hard and expensive to access. That is another reason why I think it would be better to establish a specific tribunal with responsibility for the matter.

The next group of posts is set out in proposed new subsection (1C). They include

"posts whose functions are concerned with-

(a) access to intelligence information received directly or indirectly from any of the security or intelligence services" and

"access to other information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might damage the interests of national security."

I think most people would agree with the inclusion of those two groups. Indeed, their inclusion reflects concerns expressed by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire when we were members of the Committee considering the Bill back in 2007.

The proposed new subsection also covers posts involved in

"border control or decisions about immigration."

My hon. Friend and I have proposed an additional group, however. We seek to include people involved with the Home Office-that requirement would be inserted into the Government's proposed new subsection (1A)(a)-because the Home Office has control over many aspects of security. Those responsibilities may be more junior in the hierarchy than those addressed by the intelligence and security services, but I know precious little about them because of reasons of confidentiality. We all know about the Home Office, however, and we are aware that there are people in that Department who deal with serious organised crime, which is a lot more rife than it used to be.

Those people are charged with dealing with our national security at a local level. For example, I know that the Dorset police constabulary is charged with dealing with security at the water events and sailing activities that are to take place down in Weymouth during the forthcoming Olympics. Many people are expected to attend and the Dorset police constabulary is already involved in working out what security precautions are needed to ensure that those activities take place without disruption.