´óÏó´«Ã½

It has been one of the most significant migrations in Britain's recent history. In only the last six years, our population has been boosted by one million eastern Europeans, mostly Poles. At its height in 2007, an additional 200 people arrived every day from eight former Iron-Curtain countries which had joined the EU three years earlier - the so-called A8. Now the east-west tide has officially turned. In the year to last September, 12,000 more A8 nationals left than came.

This graph from tells an extraordinary story that has had an effect on almost every community in Britain.

The legacy of this wave of migrants, however, may be permanent. Poles are now the largest foreign group resident in the UK. A decade ago, Polish beer could only be found in specialty shops. Today some 40 million pints are consumed in Britain each year. Polish delis, barbers, churches and pubs: the great Eastern European migration has left its cultural mark on the British landscape for generations to come.

The suddenness and the scale of the arrivals sent a shock-wave through parts of the UK unused to immigration. It pushed the issue to the top of the political agenda for a time. Although EU migration is not covered by government controls, arguably it has been the presence of hundreds of thousands of Poles, Latvians and Albanians that has driven ministers to promise a cap on non-EU skilled workers.

Today's figures also include on what Eastern European and other economic migrants are like. Those from outside the EU are generally more qualified than the average British worker. A third are graduates; 21% work in banking or finance. 31% are in public services like health and education.
Among workers from Eastern Europe, just 5% have degrees. Just over 29% work in hospitality or distribution - relatively low-paid jobs. A quarter are in manufacturing.

It is perhaps the increasing scarcity of such work that has prompted the end, for now at least, of "the great Eastern European invasion".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Crown Prosecution Service's attempts to convict primary-school children of rape have consistently failed. According to court statistics, they have tried six times in the last decade and six times the 10-or-11-year-olds in the dock have been acquitted of that charge.

- a divided Old Bailey jury instead convicted them of attempted rape. Their names have been placed on the sex offenders register, a status that is likely to have repercussions on the rest of their lives. They will be sentenced in eight weeks.

Chief Crown Prosecutor, Alison Saunders, stood outside the court yesterday afternoon to justify putting the boys and their eight-year-old victim through the ordeal of a full trial.

"The decision to prosecute was not taken lightly," she insisted, reminding reporters that the CPS has a "duty to prosecute where there is sufficient evidence to do so and a prosecution is in the public interest". This morning, however, some are questioning whether the public interest was served.

whether there is "any other country in the world where the pre-pubescent fumblings of children would result in a rape trial?" He regards it as "astonishing" that the little boys were convicted "but even more amazing is that it even came to court at all". It is a view echoed by other commentators today - see this round-up of responses.

Prosecutors in England and Wales are certainly under pressure to take more alleged rapists to court, particularly those accused of unlawful intercourse with a minor - statutory rape. Guidance states that "the public interest requires the prosecution of an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 unless exceptional circumstances exist".

So were there "exceptional circumstances" in this case?

Some would argue that the fact the alleged perpetrators were only 10-years-old was just that. The law of statutory rape was clearly not devised to criminalise very young children whose first sexual encounters go too far.

Many rape statutes specify that statutory rape occurs when the complainant is under a certain age but also that the perpetrator is over a certain age. No such distinction applies in England and Wales.

, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, reminded staff that "the Code for Crown Prosecutors makes clear that the interests of a youth must be considered" when deciding whether it is in the public interest to go ahead with the prosecution of a young child. He also said that prosecutors are obliged by law to "have regard to the welfare of any children appearing in court, whether as defendants or not".

He pointed out that "England and Wales has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world, much lower than in the majority of our European counterparts".

Few other Western nations would even consider prosecuting a 10-year-old for any crime, never mind statutory rape.

"For example in the Scandinavian nations the age of criminal responsibility is 15, in Portugal and Spain it is 16, and in Belgium and Luxembourg it is 18," Mr Starmer said. Having taken the decision to treat very young children as criminally responsible for their actions in Britain (the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is currently eight), the youth prosecutor "makes important decisions regarding outcomes for very young offenders that are made by care and social services agencies in most European countries," Mr Starmer told his audience.

The fact that the boys were accused of "statutory rape" raises further questions. The issue of consent from the eight-year-old girl did not apply in this case because the law assumes she is too young to give it. The jury did not need to consider whether this was a game of "doctors and nurses" that got out of hand, or even whether the girl had participated or encouraged the activities.

Their conclusion was simply that the boys tried and failed to have intercourse with her. With very young defendants there must be a question as to whether they can be expected to have an understanding of the complexities of the law in this area. It is one thing to "know right from wrong" but another to understand that the criminal justice system would regard touching private parts with a play-mate as potentially a matter which risks years in jail and a lifetime on the sex offenders register.

The CPS code reminds prosecutors that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states "it shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons". The reason for taking children to court is primarily to stop them breaking the law in future, not simply for retribution or to punish misdemeanours in the past.

As the act makes clear, that preventive approach "provides a new guiding principle to which all agencies and individuals can relate their work and responsibilities". So a further question for the CPS is whether prosecution in this case made it less likely that the two boys will re-offend.

"I don't think anyone who has sat through this trial would think for a moment that the system that we employ is ideal," the judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said. He was reflecting but his remark has been seized upon by those who think the case should never have come to court in the first place.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So, that deep red line - the immigration cap - is scored into today's document:

The next sentence is the interesting one, though:

It is the "mechanism" that is going to be the really tricky bit.

At the moment, the only non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK are those with enormous wealth, enormous brains or with specific skills in areas where Britain has an identified shortage.

How will the mechanism prevent the cap damaging the national interest? There are already warnings that stopping people coming to the UK who have skills or investment we need would undermine another of the coalition's stated aims:

As revealed on this blog, official data show that the number of non-EU economic migrants employed in the UK is falling - down 76,000 last year compared with the year before. Some sectors of the economy are already complaining that they cannot fill key vacancies.

The cap could only apply to , since those are the only two categories under which migrant workers from outside the EU can come to the UK.

Tier 1 is for "Highly skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs". It is hard to imagine that these are the kind of immigrants the UK would want to ban.

Tier 2 covers "Sponsored skilled workers", mostly defined as "people coming to the UK with a skilled job offer to fill a gap in the workforce that cannot be filled by a settled worker". Again, it is difficult to conceive how, in the short-term, stopping these individuals would be good for Britain.

The (MAC) was set up to offer "independent, transparent and evidence-based advice to government on labour market shortages that can sensibly be filled by migration". Only non-EU workers with a job and the right skills in a sector identified by the committee are allowed in.

Some British business leaders are already fuming that the MAC has not agreed to put their sectors on the list of skill shortages which would allow them to bring talent in from overseas. The suggestion that we need a cap seems to imply that the government believes the committee has not been tough enough.

So it is going to be interesting to see how the cap "mechanism" might work: set the limit high and there's no point in having it; set it low and Britain deprives itself of workers which benefit the UK. The thinking cap will be worn.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Conservatives were never going to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA).

Some in the party might have thought that a manifesto pledge to replace the HRA with a UK Bill of Rights meant they would get rid of those pesky foreign laws which stopped Britain sending terror suspects packing. But if they did, they weren't listening.

"Although some have argued, and increasingly vociferously, that the solution for the UK in view of these problems is to withdraw from the Convention altogether on the grounds that it is an undesirable and unnecessary fetter of national sovereignty in decision making, I entirely disagree, as does the Conservative Party."

That was the Attorney General as shadow justice secretary.

"Such a withdrawal would send a very damaging signal about how the UK viewed the place and promotion of human rights and liberties and would be an encouragement to every tin pot dictator such as Robert Mugabe, who violates them."

How does that fit with the manifesto promise to "replace the Human Rights Act"? Well, the point is that there are two different legal documents involved and some confusion over how they affect Britain.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a binding commitment on all members of the Council of Europe. Drafted in 1950 by a committee led by the Conservative politician, David Maxwell Fyfe, it is that document which ultimately prevents the UK from deporting people who face torture or death.

The human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson has pointed out that withdrawing from the ECHR "would probably require the United Kingdom to leave the EU as well". That was not Conservative policy.

The UK Human Rights Act is a separate and complementary piece of domestic legislation which incorporates most of the ECHR into UK law.

This has meant that British citizens could, as the Labour manifesto put it, "take action in British courts rather than having to wait years to seek redress in Strasbourg".

It does not change individuals rights under the European Convention - it emphasises and clarifies them.

The Conservative promise to "replace" the HRA might have been assumed to mean "scrap" the HRA.

But, in fact, the Conservative policy-makers have always made it clear that the alternative UK Bill of Rights would retain all the ECHR rights and add a few more - in the jargon it would be "Convention plus".

Hugh Tomlinson tells me that, well before the election, the Tories were suggesting it was their intention "to use, in many if not all cases, the same wording as current Convention rights".

Last night, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was told that the coalition government would "establish a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that takes full account of all our obligations under the European convention of human rights and protects and extends traditional British liberties".

No surprise to those who'd been following the story, but a far cry from what when he described the Human Rights Act as "practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain".

In that speech he said it was "wrong to undermine public safety, and indeed public confidence in the concept of human rights, by allowing highly dangerous criminals and terrorists to trump the rights of the people of Britain to live in security and peace."

But he also said his new "British Bill of Rights... should protect the fundamental rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights in clearer and more precise terms".

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit spotted the problem straight away - that any British Bill of Rights could be overridden in Strasbourg as long as the UK remains signed up to the European convention.

When it comes to the intractable issue of what to do with terror suspects against whom there is not enough evidence to prosecute, but where security services and the home secretary are convinced they pose a risk to public safety, it is which may prevent deportation.

It prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

The European Court of Human Rights has emphasised the fundamental nature of article three - that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms... irrespective of a victim's conduct." So it covers innocent old ladies and hardened criminals equally.

In a landmark case brought by the UK government in 1997, the Strasbourg court made it clear that states cannot deport or extradite individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state.

Experts are clear that changing the wording and the name of the Human Rights Act in Britain would not and could not indemnify Britain against its obligations under the ECHR.

, Home Secretary Theresa May appeared to suggest to John Humphrys that it was the Liberal Democrats who had forced a change of thinking.

May: "We did say things, that we thought the HRA was not working in certain areas, prior to the election, and we are now discussing with our coalition partners what we will be doing in that area."
Ìý
Humphrys: "You said you were going to get rid of it, you are not now going to get rid of it...?"
Ìý
May: "No, we are currently discussing with our coalition partners what we will be doing in this area."

In an said of the Human Rights Act: "Any government would tamper with it at its peril."

It was not the warning shot as portrayed by some since neither his party, nor their Conservative coalition partners, ever seriously planned to do so.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Britain fidgets nervously in a deserted airport terminal. A black cloud of volcanic ash has forced all the engines to be turned off. We are hanging around waiting for the departures board to ripple back into life.

And we fear what it will tell us when it does.

The machinery of government has been put on auto-pilot, a silent glide until new ministers have been told what really happens if they press any of the cockpit buttons.

After years moaning at the crew, now they are in charge, but before they take over the controls they must listen to a pre-flight briefing explaining how it is all a bit more complicated than they thought.

I rang a departmental press office this week and asked if I could interview a minister about one of the new government's flagship policies. No-one was available. Why? Because they are still learning how they might keep the promises they made to the electorate.

So we sit and we wait.

Businesses, public services, charities: all must sit on their hands until the government flight plan has been published. It will be a few more days yet before the details of the route captain Cameron and co-pilot Clegg are planning for Britain.

The forecast is grim. Dangerous volcanic clouds drift overhead. Storms are on their way. Lightning strikes look certain.

Ashen-faced and white-knuckled, some of the passengers in the departure hall suffer a profound fear of flying.

Buckle up Britain. It is going to be a bumpy ride.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Britain has spoken. But not with one voice.

If voters wanted to give all the parties a dead leg and try to force those quarrelsome politicians to start working together, it might be argued they have got their wish.

But when commentators talk about "the message from the British people", they divine a sophisticated group purpose from individual actions.

What Britain has ended up with this morning is the consequence of tens of millions of different acts, made for an almost infinite number of reasons. It is not a clear message because there is no clear message.

Think of it this way. ´óÏó´«Ã½ News might ask me today to reflect the way the UK feels about the political impasse it has created. I could walk out into Salford, where I watched Hazel Blears hold her seat earlier today, and ask a few dozen passers-by what they reckon. Then I could select three or four of them, with a range of views, to provide a selection of responses.

We call it the "vox pop" - literally, "the voice of the people". It is anything but.

Sometimes, the technique can be helpful, but to reflect accurately what the people collectively say, we might be best to run them all simultaneously because that is the truth about last night's vote. People from all over the country were talking over each other with different ideas and passions and prejudices, a range of views which together add up to the kind of hubbub and hullabaloo voters apparently dislike so much when they hear it in the House of Commons.

There are some themes, I think, which emerge from the electorate's actions.

Britain appears more politically tribal than the debate worms would suggest. It is one thing to press the button on your gizmo on live TV to say you like the cut of Nick's jib. Quite another to go against the traditions of two-party politics when faced with a blank slip in the anonymity of the voting booth.

Voters wanted change but they didn't know what kind of change they wanted. This sentiment played out very differently around the country with some places much clearer than others about what they saw as the best option.

Britain told the pollsters it was furious about immigration and expenses but, when it came to it, Britons were unable to demonstrate that particularly strongly in the ballot. It was a muted voice within the clamour.

The failure of the system to allow hundreds of people who had queued in the rain to have their vote has been described as a fundamental breach of our democracy. But the bigger picture is an example of how our democracy itself can sometimes find it impossible adequately to reflect the contradictions contained in the voice of the British people.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What puts more pressure on British jobs - migrant workers coming from the European Union or from outside the EU? This matters, of course, because workers from beyond the EU are affected by the immigration points system and potentially by Conservative proposals for a cap. Workers from inside are free to come and go.

I think I may have a few clues.

Last week I quoted official figures showing that, in 2008, 67,000 non-EU workers came to the UK and 99,000 EU workers. On the face of it, this suggests the effect on jobs is greater from inside rather than outside the European Union.

But the stats only tell us how many workers came into the UK - not how many others left. It is the overall figure, the net number, which matters. After all, if fewer EU workers arrived than departed and more non-EU workers came than left, the picture would be completely different.

The net statistics I quoted last week are not as useful as they might be because they measure people's reasons for migrating rather than accurately tracking the arrival and departure of foreign workers.

The hunt is on, therefore, for a better way of identifying trends. With the help of a friendly chap at the Office for National Statistics, I was guided to a table within the Labour Force Survey , .

The figures show the number of UK and non-UK workers in the labour force and, within that, the number of EU workers with jobs in Britain. It is possible, therefore, to identify UK, EU and non-EU workers and to see how the picture is changing.

The latest data show that, comparing the last quarter of 2009 with the same period in 2008, there are 76,000 fewer non-EU workers and 13,000 fewer EU workers employed in the UK. The EU change is not large enough to be statistically significant - in terms of a trend, the picture is stable.

What does this mean for British workers - after all, fewer of them are employed too? Well, the proportion of all jobs occupied by UK citizens has risen - very slightly. At the end of 2008, 91.9% of jobs were held by Brits. At the end of 2009, it was 92.1%.

Interestingly, while the proportion of jobs held by non-EU workers (the ones affected by the immigration points system) has fallen a tad - from 4.6% to 4.4% of British jobs, EU workers' share of the jobs has gone up slightly - from 3.4% to 3.5%. (The figures don't add up exactly because of rounding.)

Even though the number of EU workers with British jobs has fallen, their share of the UK jobs market has risen a little as the market contracts. Again, this effect may not be statistically significant.

But this is all a far cry from the story in 2002, before the big increases in immigration from central Europe and beyond kicked in. Back then, 95.1% of British jobs were held by British workers. Around 3% were held by non-EU citizens and 1.9% by EU migrants.

The year everything really changed was 2007. The economy was expanding and about 615,000 new jobs were created. Who got them? Roughly 200,000 went to non-EU workers; 275,000 were taken by EU migrants; the remainder, about 140,000, went to Brits.

Looking at 2009 again, one can see that all three groups lost jobs. UK workers lost the most jobs - 335,000 - but things look rather different when you analyse it in percentage terms.

Among all UK workers, 1.3% lost their jobs in 2009. Among EU workers, 1.2% lost their jobs, a very similar figure. But among non-EU workers, 6% were made redundant in that year.

So what can we conclude in terms of where the pressure on British jobs comes from most? I think the figures suggest that the effect of non-EU jobs is declining, but EU migration's effect is broadly stable.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?