Another opportunity wasted

Ironically, as the election of a BNP councillor raises the R-word among local politicians, the effects of immigration on Boston are highlighted by both Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire Police.
The borough is chortling about the launch of a voluntary code on employing migrant workers after Boston played "a key role" in highlighting the issue of improving working conditions in the food sector.
The code is a guide to recruiting, employing and facilitating the integration of migrant workers into the UK, and was developed by one of Prince Charles's charities - Business in the Community's Migrant Worker Integration Group - after a "Seeing is Believing" visit (don't you just love these little titles?) to Boston in 2006.
Chief Executive Mick Gallagher said raising employment standards in this sector would help raise employment standards for all workers, and was very important for the area.
What the borough omits to say is that whilst Boston's population was 57,000 seven years ago, 15,000 migrants have settled here since - and the borough is now home to more than 30 nationalities.
The BiTC report says: "The transient nature of migrants and the lack of public funding (which is allocated on the basis of historic figures) has caused severe problems for Boston Borough Council in dealing with this influx, including the challenges of integrating different cultures and backgrounds."
"While migrants bring a number of benefits, such as raising economic output and filling labour shortages and skill gaps, they also pose a number of challenges for example in relation to community cohesion and the provision of adequate housing and services.
"Overseas migration into rural communities on the scale currently experienced is an unprecedented phenomenon and one to which the local community is, in many cases, struggling to adapt."
The study says there has been a 186% growth in migrant workers in rural areas since 2002, including at least 116,000 Eastern Europeans in 2006/07 alone.
"In many instances, rural communities in these areas lack the necessary resources, skills and infrastructure to adapt to the growing migrant population."
Not that long ago, we seem to recall that Boston's leaden leadership (both civilian and elected) was promising to use statistics like this to persuade the government to boost local budgets. There is certainly a forceful argument that the "historic" population-equals-funding policy should not lag as far behind as it does at present, giving Boston a pay rise that recognises its migrant influx and pays for the ensuing infrastructure costs.
Instead they just accept plaudits (and maybe the odd gong in the New Year honours list) and ignore a persuasive and royally-backed argument for local funding enhancements from the government, which would do much to bale out the council's sagging finances. Another opportunity missed.
Meanwhile, Lincolnshire Police, whilst apparently getting the brush-off from minister Vernon Coaker, whom they met last week to renew their pleas for more money, have announced that translation services covering 49 different languages cost more than £300,000 a year.
The bill of more than £190,000 since April averaged £900 a day, and cost £317,421 between April 2007 and 2008.
"We have a duty to victims and witnesses and to ensure that alleged offenders receive fair treatment under the criminal justice system - this can only be achieved through clear communication," said a police spokesman, who added: "Lincolnshire Police is conscious of the financial implications of interpretation services, and is determined to provide these in the most cost effective way possible."
Lincolnshire Police are famous for spending beyond their means, and we note that the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust, which one might imagine would have a similar - if not greater -demand for interpreters, spent just £6,200 on translation in the same period.

Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.