KENT county council have threatened Priti Patel with legal action as it warns services for unaccompanied child migrants are at breaking point.
The authority said it was the second time in less than a year that their services have been overwhelmed, and that in a matter of days they will no longer be able to accept new asylum-seeking children.
Kent council has nearly double the number of asylum-seeking children in its care than the government says it is safe to have, and the local authority have served a formal letter to the Home Office.
It comes after the council said last August it had reached capacity to care for unaccompanied children, despite efforts to work with the Home Office and other local authorities.
READ MORE: Priti Patel blasted for blaming social media posts for surge in migrant crossings
The council have now taken the first steps in legal proceedings to bring in a long-term solution to stop the crisis from happening again.
So far this year, 242 lone child migrants have arrived on Kent shores and been passed to children's services, but only 52 have been moved to other local authorities under a voluntary transfer scheme.
The proposed judicial review claims there has been a "refusal and/or continuing failure by the Home Secretary to exercise her powers to prepare a mandatory scheme".
The review also asks the Home Secretary to use existing powers to direct other local authorities to take on their share of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Currently, there are 403 under 18-year-olds in care in Kent and 1078 who are over 18, care leavers who remain in Kent County Council care until they are 25-years-old.
Kent council leader, Roger Gough, said: “I am deeply saddened that we are now seeing a repeat of the same crisis of nine months ago.
“While there have been a number of welcome measures from government – to the benefit of the Kent council taxpayer – we have not seen what is most needed: a robust National Transfer Scheme that prevents port authorities such as Kent coming under unmanageable pressure.
"Over this last year we have argued consistently and repeatedly that this must be done through a mandatory system.
“The Home Office consulted on changes to the National Transfer Scheme (NTS) in August and September last year and have yet to publish any new proposals or a response to the consultation. The scheme remains voluntary with insufficient incentive for other UK Local Authorities to transfer UASC from Kent.
“Kent residents deserve a resolution to this issue. We still do not have one. The wholly disproportionate strain on Kent’s Children’s Services continues to be overlooked.
READ MORE: Priti Patel told to resign by SNP after Napier Barracks ruling
“We must ensure that all UK local authorities with capacity share in the support of these children.
“Enough is enough. A robust, long-term solution is well overdue and critical for the future welfare of all children supported by KCC, whatever their background, and the continuation of the excellent services that support them.”
Kent Council said that in May, 115 unaccompanied child migrants arrived in Dover - almost doubling from the same month in 2020, where there were 64 unaccompanied children.
Between June 1 and June 7 this year, 23 unaccompanied child migrants have arrived in the country so far.
The Home Office said: “Those who attempt to cheat the system place an unjust burden on the taxpayer and prevent genuine asylum seekers from getting support.
"This is why the government is bringing forward the new plan for immigration which will allow us to welcome those most in need through safe and legal routes, while preventing abuse of the system.
“We recognise the longstanding role that Kent county council has played in supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and are extremely grateful for their contribution.
"We continue to encourage more areas to join the NTS and do their part. We have already consulted on how to improve the scheme to make it fairer – the outcome of which will be published very shortly.”
The council told the Guardian that in the absence of any substantive Home Office response to its proposal by 17 June, it will proceed to issue a claim for judicial review against the home secretary.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel