A fish processing centre in Grimsby, which will help protect hundreds of jobs, has been given planning permission.

The £3million Seafood Village will provide premises for up to 40 companies that are  currently housed in old buildings on the town’s fish docks.

A spokesman from Grimsby Fish Merchants Association, said it was a marvellous opportunity and would help bolster the local economy.

“It will be an opportunity to attract new people in and I think it will give business… greater opportunity to do more work for retailers and to actually strengthen that brand that we already have, which is Grimsby fish.”

More than 25 companies are already committed to relocate to the new facility which is situated on a three acre site off Wickham Road.

Its first phase will see 20 self-contained units built, with a second phase providing an additional 20 units

It is hoped work will start on the Seafood Village by September.

On Monday the Home Secretary confirmed that she plans to press ahead with the government agenda for directly elected police and crime commissioners which will take charge of police forces in England and Wales in two years. Announcing what Theresa may called “the most radical reforms to policing in at least 50 years”, she also announced the formation of a National Crime Agency.

The details, outlined in a consultation paper entitled Policing in the 21st Century: Re-connecting Police and the People, included the news that the National Police Improvement Agency would be phased out by 2012.

Mrs May told MPs that police reform was a priority of the new Government:

“For too long the police have become disconnected from the communities they serve, they have been bogged down by bureaucracy and they have answered to distant politicians instead of to the people.”

Liberal Democrat Portfolio holder,Councillor Steve Beasant said:

“Even before I had chance to see a copy of the consultation paper, I was interviewed by Grimsby Telegraph I told the newspaper that I have major concerns about the plans, and there is a danger that the police could become politicised.”

“I am very concerned for the local people of North East Lincolnshire; at present we do not get a bad service but one individual could polarise the services if we are not careful.

“Depending where the person is elected, we might finish with no representation.

“To vest the powers in just one person is very, very dangerous.”

Responding to the Home Office’s consultation paper published on Monday, Cllr Richard Kemp, Vice Chair of the Local Government Association, said:

“People quite rightly want a say on what is being done to combat crime and disorder issues affecting their every day lives. The current situation cannot continue. Shifting police accountability to the public and away from Whitehall is something that local government has long been campaigning for.

“However, this paper does not delve deep enough into the government’s proposal of directly elected individuals. In difficult financial circumstances, we have to ask if this is the right time to change structures through additional elections, which could cost the same as 700 police officers.

“If the police are to be truly held to account at local level, then councils must be at the heart of any new system. Councils already have democratically elected councillors overseeing community safety, each of whom are scrutinised and held to account by that authority.

“The reintegration of police oversight into council structures is not only the most cost effective solution, the measure would require minimal legislative changes, drive out duplicate spending and deliver efficiency savings.”

London Liberal Democrat MEP for London Sarah Ludford has written with her colleagues Tom Brake MP and Simon Hughes MP to the Director of Public Prosecutions about his failure to bring a prosecution against the police officer seen on video striking Ian Tomlinson who died shortly afterwards.

Local newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson was walking home from work on 1 April 2009 when he got caught up in the G20 protests in the City of London.

Sarah Ludford said:

“The decision announced by the DPP not to bring charges concerning Ian Tomlinson’s death – rather crassly, on the fifth anniversary of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes – seems to the public like a cover-up. It will damage even further the vital trust between citizens and the police.”

“Tom Brake, Simon Hughes and I are urging the DPP to at least prosecute for assault or misconduct in public office if not homicide, to pledge to reconsider their decision if further evidence comes out of the forthcoming inquest, and to support any private prosecution by the Tomlinson family.”

“The cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson seem to show no real improvement in police behaviour since the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation failure in the 1990s and Blair Peach’s death 30 years ago. Not only must the policing of protest radically change but there must be a revolution in attitudes to avert devastating public cynicism about the police.”

A letter delivered to Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, on 28 July 2010 asks the following questions:

We are writing with regard to the decision not to charge PC Simon Harwood in relation to the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests on April 1, 2009.

We understand that four different charges were considered, but for a variety of reasons none of the charges were able to be brought against PC Harwood, and to this day he remains suspended on full pay.

We write this letter to ask several follow-up questions.

1. Are there any circumstances under which it would still be possible to press charges for common assault – after six months has elapsed? (We are curious to know what consideration was given at the outset of the investigation to the possibility that there was a deadline for pursuing certain potential offences including common assault. If it was not considered, at what juncture was the decision made not to press charges for common assault and how was this decision was made?)

2. What additional evidence would be required for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider bringing a charge of misconduct in public office? (Given that this requires conduct “[amounting] to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder,” we would like to know what actions should be regarded as an abuse of the public’s trust and what criteria were used to set the “high threshold” for the offence of serious misconduct in public office in this particular case.)

3. Can you confirm that you will consider seriously any evidence which emerges during the inquest into Mr Tomlinson’s death, and re-visit your decision not to prosecute in the light of this evidence? (Given that an officer was captured on video striking Mr Tomlinson with a baton and shoving him to the ground, we would be interested to know what new evidence would need to come to light in order for the CPS to consider pursuing a case against him.)

4. Is it possible for an individual now to initiate a private prosecution, and if so on which prospective charges, and would the CPS have any role in advising on or supporting any such prosecution?

We look forward to receiving your response.

Tom Brake MP

Sarah Ludford MEP

Simon Hughes MP

Labour’s shadow cabinet decision is not about principle, it is about naked opportunism.

Commenting on Labour’s decision to oppose legislation for a referendum on the alternative vote, which was a commitment in their manifesto, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Simon Hughes said: “This is staggering hypocrisy from Labour.

“Labour’s shadow cabinet decision is not about principle, it is about naked opportunism.

“With most of their leadership contenders claiming to back AV for a fairer voting system, it is astonishing they now wish to block the legislation to make that happen.

“Each and every Labour MP campaigned on a manifesto committing to a referendum. Now they have the opportunity to make this happen but have chosen to say no for opposition’s sake.

“Labour can no longer claim to be the party of reform. It is now the party of vested interests and shameless self-interest.”

The News that Defra’s failure to implement the Single Farm Payment properly in 2005 has cost the UK taxpayer £161 million has been described by Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick upon Tweed, Sir Alan Beith as “damning evidence” for a drastic overhaul of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA).

The European Commission adopted a proposal on July 16 which confirmed the UK must return €189 million (£161 million) of ‘unduly spent’ single payment money back into EU coffers. Defra has announced the findings of an independent Review of the RPA, completed by David Lane working with Deloitte, PWC and Gartner. The Review was commissioned by Defra in September 2009 and concludes that there are significant opportunities to provide a better quality of customer service and deliver efficiencies through improvements in the operational processes, as well as highlighting the lack of appropriate governance and oversight from within RPA’s leadership and Defra.

Sir Alan Beith has called on Defra to simplify the RPA by introducing a minimum payment figure of £300, which would help reduce the cost of processing claims and by bringing an end to costly and unnecessary re-mapping of field boundaries.

Sir Alan Beith said: “The environmental benefits provided by farmers in maintaining the countryside deserve a continued system of support. But the entire process was thrown into disrepute by the previous Labour government, whose incompetent management of the Rural Payments Agency cost farmers and taxpayers alike.

“Sadly the findings of the report commissioned by the last Government only tell us what we already knew, which was that data held by the RPA has been riddled with errors and efforts to recover overpayments have been slow, disorganised and haphazard.

“I very much hope the report’s recommendations will be put into practice and real leadership to turn the RPA around will be provided.

“There should be a minimum payment figure to stop non-farmers clogging up the system as well bringing about an end to the re-mapping fiasco which has left so many farmers out of pocket.”

The report can be found online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmmanage/singlepay/documents/rpa-exec-summary-190710.pdf

Under new powers for local residents due to be announced today, Pubs and clubs could been prevented from late night opening through the impact of drunkenness and noise on the wider community. New venues could be refused a licence if local people think that there are too many premises in the area and their neighbourhoods are being adversely affected.

The new move will put an end to the rule that members of the public can only object to opening hours or new licensing applications if they are neighbours of the premises.

The new moves are part of a wide-ranging revision of licensing laws to be announced by the Home Secretary which will bring an end to 24 hour drinking.

Objections to applications will be allowed “regardless of geographic proximity” as long as the objector is able to explain how they would be affected by alcohol-related problems, which means that residents could oppose new bars or extended hours at venues that are several miles away provided they can argue that it would affect them or their community.

Councils will still be allowed to decide, but the final decision is expected to have high regard for the concerns of the community.

As disclosed by The Daily Telegraph last week, the announcement will also include plans to allow councils to ban opening after midnight in any problem areas.

Other proposed measures include a ban on shops selling alcohol at below cost price and a “late-night” levy on some pubs and clubs that will contribute towards the extra cost of policing, and increased powers to close shops or bars that serve children repeatedly for up to a week, while fines for selling alcohol to those who are underage would be doubled.

The Home Secretary said:

“The benefits promised by the 24 hour drinking ‘café culture’ have failed to materialise and in its place we have seen an increase in the number of alcohol related incidents and drink-fuelled crime and disorder.

“We know that the majority of pubs and bars are well run business but the Government believes that the system needs to be rebalanced in favour of the local communities they serve with tougher action taken to crack down on the small number of premises who cause problems.”

Alcohol-related crime and disorder to the taxpayer is estimated to be between £8 and £13billion.

Jon Stoddart, who speaks on licensing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:

“Any proposals to deal with the problem of excessive drinking and the associated problems of violence and disorder are welcomed by the Police Service.

“Nationally there are over one million alcohol fuelled violent assaults every year and drinking is a key factor in many domestic-related assaults. It has a major impact on people’s lives, local communities and, of course, police resources.”

John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates’ Association said,

“The Magistrates’ Association always believed that transferring control of licensing to local councils and away from the courts was a mistake.

“There has been a failure to produce any national control over personal licence holders and this has resulted in a more expensive and less satisfactory system than before the Act came into force”

The Home Secretary has listened to Liberal Democrat concerns. It’s clear that resorting to ASBOs was a sign of failure.

Commenting on today’s speech by the Home Secretary in which she said  it was ‘time to move beyond’ Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Justice, Tom Brake said:

“The Home Secretary has listened to Liberal Democrat concerns. 

“With more than half of ASBOs breached in 2008, this was a policy more about posturing than effective policing.  Local communities know that other measures, such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts can nip problems in the bud before they escalate. 

“Resorting to ASBOs was a sign of failure.”

Labour’s shadow cabinet decision is not about principle, it is about naked opportunism

Commenting on Labour’s decision to oppose legislation for a referendum on the alternative vote, which was a commitment in their manifesto, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Simon Hughes said:

“This is staggering hypocrisy from Labour.

“Labour’s shadow cabinet decision is not about principle, it is about naked opportunism.

“With most of their leadership contenders claiming to back AV for a fairer voting system, it is astonishing they now wish to block the legislation to make that happen.

“Each and every Labour MP campaigned on a manifesto committing to a referendum. Now they have the opportunity to make this happen but have chosen to say no for opposition’s sake.

“Labour can no longer claim to be the party of reform. It is now the party of vested interests and shameless self-interest.”

The House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has announced that the UK Youth Parliament will be holding its annual debate in the House of Commons chamber on 29 October.

This announcement follows last week’s decision by MPs allow the UK Youth Parliament to meet once a year in the chamber for the duration of this Parliament.

This will be the second time the UK Youth Parliament has been allowed to debate in the chamber.

The 300 11 to 18 year olds had been given permission last year to sit in the House of Commons chamber for one day of debate, despite opposition from some backbenchers.

The Youth Parliament was set up in 1999 and gives an opportunity for teenagers to use their voice to bring about social and political change.

Any young person aged 11 to 18 can stand as a member or vote in Youth Parliament elections.

Speaker John Bercow welcomed the decision and said he was “delighted” that the Commons will be welcoming the Youth Parliament delegates to the House for a second time.

He said:

“Last year’s event was a huge success for everyone concerned. It showed young people that the House of Commons and the work that goes on here is relevant to their lives.

“I hope this year’s debate and further similar events in this Parliament will go even further in helping to engage young people with politics.”

Responding to the smart meter prospectus issued jointly by the Department for Energy and Climate Change and Ofgem today, Zoe McLeod, energy expert at Consumer Focus, said:

“The measures proposed today are a major step forward for energy customers. We are delighted that the Government and Ofgem have made such smart moves in response to our campaigning on the measures needed to make smart meters work for consumers.

“Providing prepay facilities in all smart meters would be a major breakthrough which should cut bills and make payment easier for millions of the poorest customers who have been penalised for years. The recognition that greater safeguards must be developed on consumer protection and privacy should also help to reassure any customers with concerns over this technology.

“However, the unanswered question on many consumers’ lips will remain how much this will cost them and whether they should be writing a blank cheque for smart meters given the cost benefits it will provide to industry.”