'All persons being employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown by virtue of this Act shall prior to taking up such office of employment make the oath or affirmation specified in the Schedule.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Oath and affirmation—

The form of oath for the employment of persons in a civil capacity under the Crown by virtue of this Act is as follows—

I swear by Almighty God (do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my employment (office) in a civil capacity under the Crown and serve the Crown without fear or favour to any other.'.

I have not sought to lengthen the debate on the other clauses, and we can wrap up this debate by reference to clause 1 and to the new clause and new schedule.

At the outset, I should say that the new clause is an imperfect document. I did my best in a rather short period to draft something for the Committee, and it serves as a probing amendment. I am conscious that those in the office have changed the new clause in one distinct way. They did so for good reasons because they felt that it might have been unsuitable for consideration as originally drafted. The change was made by adding the words:

''by virtue of this Act''.

That has the effect of confining an affirmation of loyalty as a Crown servant to those who would be affected by the Act, thereby discriminating between those who were foreigners seeking to take advantage of the Act, and those who were not. I say to the Minister and the hon. Member for Hendon that that was not my original intention. I would have preferred a more general, short affirmation of loyalty and discharge without fear or favour of the office of a civil servant applying to anyone who becomes a Crown servant, and I may return to dealing with that matter differently at a later stage.

I am aware that many Crown servants have to sign the Official Secrets Act, but that is a slightly different case, and does not deal with the issue that the public would want addressed. Those who are becoming Crown servants will serve their fellow citizens, and they should by some small affirmation make it clear that they understand the nature of their work and the duty that it places on them. I cannot help thinking that many people becoming Crown servants might welcome such a process. It is not onerous in any way, and if someone were to find it so, it would raise a question mark in my mind as to why they did.

I tabled the new clause because I thought it met the objectives of the hon. Member for Hendon while dealing with the slight reservations I expressed when we discussed clause 1. I am mindful of the fact that the drafting of the clause—which may be the only way it can be drafted for our consideration—has the effect of restricting it to those who are taking advantage of the provisions of the Act. I say candidly that that is not a satisfactory situation, but as it is the only way I could bring the matter before the Committee, I thought that it was still right to do so.

I shall be interested to hear the Government's response from the Minister, because it is important—whether we are dealing with someone working in a benefits office making decisions on who gets what or whoever—that people should have a sense of confidence that Crown servants understand the importance of their role, as it affects the rights of their fellow citizens.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is potential for discrimination between classes of civil servant. One of my main concerns was that there could be a series of different types of oath. It is important to point out that the proposal is not an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Having said that, there is a series of potential anomalies about who should and should not swear some sort of oath of allegiance.

Does my hon. Friend accept that such a requirement should also be applied to foreign nationals working, for example, in the national health service or local government? Admittedly, they are not working for the Crown, as strictly defined, but they should be covered by the same expectations and affirmations of loyalty as set out in the Bill.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Non-UK nationals deliver services on behalf of the state in the broadest sense, whether nationally or locally, but the rules would apply only to civil servants employed by central Government. UK nationals by birth do not have to take any oath of allegiance, and would not have to take the proposed oath if they worked for the civil service. However, someone naturalised to UK nationality would have to take an oath of allegiance. It is against the attempt to create an inclusive civil service to distinguish between the two classes, and it could create confusion.

The new clause is not necessary. The civil service code, which applies to every civil servant, makes it clear that:

''Civil servants are servants of the Crown. Constitutionally, all the Administrations form part of the Crown and, subject to the provisions of this Code, civil servants owe their loyalty to the Administrations in which they serve.''

Section 4.1.1 of the civil service management code states:

''Civil servants are servants of the Crown and owe a duty of loyal service to the Crown as their employer. Since constitutionally the Crown acts on the advice of Ministers who are answerable for their departments and agencies in Parliament, that duty is, subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Code, owed to the duly constituted Government.''

It is clearly part of any civil servants' contract and their terms and conditions of employment that they accept the matters that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has raised. Those strict and clear provisions could not be more obviously set out than in the civil service code and the management code. Therefore, the new clause is otiose and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

I shall speak only briefly, because I think that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hendon, posed the question to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield exactly as I would have done. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) asked to what extent the proposal should apply and whether it should apply to NHS employees as well as to Crown servants as defined by the Bill. However, there could be a form of discrimination if certain people who are allowed to

serve the Crown have to take an oath or affirmation: either everyone or no one should be forced to do so. That is a probing point and I would be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and the Minister.

The Government cannot accept the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. He spoke with candour about some of the difficulties he faced and about the drafting changes. It is an important subject that is worth discussing, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon has covered much of the ground that I shall cover.

Section 4.1.1 of the civil service management code states:

''Civil servants are servants of the Crown and owe a duty of loyal service to the Crown as their employer. Since constitutionally the Crown acts on the advice of Ministers who are answerable for their departments and agencies in Parliament, that duty is . . . owed to the duly constituted Government.''

Of course, citizens of the European economic area and those employed under the aliens' certificate under the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 are currently employed in a civil capacity under the Crown by virtue of the exceptions made for the free movement of workers under European Community law. Commonwealth citizens are not required to swear any such allegiance by virtue of their status when taking up employment or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown.

Our debate has got to the nub of the issue. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield may believe that the aims that he wishes to achieve with his new clause have merit, but I am not convinced that the Bill is the statutory vehicle through which to achieve them. If he still wants all civil servants to take an oath or affirmation, regardless of nationality, perhaps he should consider another vehicle by which he may bring that about.

This has been an interesting debate, and it has been educational to follow hon. Members' reasoning, particularly that of the Minister.

The Minister may be right to say that the Bill is not the vehicle with which to achieve my aims. Indeed, I had to change the wording of the new clause in a way in which I did not want because I was told that it might not be a satisfactory vehicle to deal with the issue of an oath or affirmation. That is unfortunate—I might return to the charge at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings—because the Bill, which, I accept, previously contained a host of anomalies, seeks a radical overhaul without considering the total picture. What the Minister proposes would mean that we would be deprived of the opportunity of looking at the total picture, while carrying out radical change. That is not entirely satisfactory.

It would be equally unsatisfactory—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on this—to require certain types of civil servants to make affirmations, while others make

none. I accept that entirely. That is not how the new clause and new schedule were originally drafted. The words

''by virtue of this Act'' did not feature in the drafts that I presented, but the Clerks, with their customary courtesy, assisted me by telling me that, as far as they could see, making such a change would be the only way in which this matter could be brought before the Committee. I will withdraw the new clause for now, but I do not think this matter slight or inconsequential. I would not have raised it if I did. There is an issue of concern, which goes to the matter of public trust.

The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North spoke about the difference between a civil servant and someone who works for the NHS. I agree that there are anomalies, but we have a legal definition of who is a civil servant: someone who is a direct servant of the Crown. It is by virtue of that that certain responsibilities set out in the civil service code are spelled out so clearly.

Public reassurance and understanding would be enhanced if the public thought that the Government's planned changes would lead to more diversity in the

people employed without the previous restrictions—subject, of course, to ministerial ability to provide certain restrictions in some cases. It would greatly assist public reassurance if there were some affirmation when people are taken on. I shall be disappointed if it turns out to be impossible to deal with that in this Bill, because the opportunities for doing it hereafter may be somewhat limited until we have another Civil Service Act, and I cannot imagine that the Minister is about to tell us that such a weighty piece of legislation is going to land on our lap. I suspect that most politicians would think that such legislation might best be avoided if possible, as it would spend many hours in Committee. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon on successfully piloting his Bill though Committee.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at four minutes past Five o'clock.