David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. I had not planned to speak to clause 3, but I noticed that it makes provision for

“payments to senior officers who cease to hold office before the end of a fixed term appointment.”

That caught my eye because of the debate that we have just had, in which I quoted remarks by the APA and ACPO about the current operation of the FTA regime. I said that I was not strongly against it. Helpfully, the Minister added that he had seen no empirical evidence that there were problems with FTA. He said that there was anecdotal evidence, but that no evidence had come across his desk that would lead him as a Minister to reconsider the whole regime. Fair enough; so far, so good. I wonder, therefore, why clause 3 takes specific steps to make such payments as I just quoted. Is it because more and more senior officers are exiting fixed-term appointments before the end of the due term? Otherwise, why do we need this clause? I would have thought that that would be provided for under existing legislation. I would be very grateful, therefore, if he could explain why the provision in clause 3 is necessary. Is it because there are more breaks in fixed-term appointments than was the case formerly?

See this speech in context