A GROUP of Greater Manchester councils is refusing to impose "immoral" new asylum legislation under which children could be taken away from parents.

It means they are defying the Home Office.

When families are refused asylum, their benefits are stopped and eviction notices served.

If, as a result of the loss of income, social services feel children cannot be cared for properly, they can be taken into care.

The measures are included in the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004. Previously, failed asylum seekers who were families with children under 18 qualified for support, including council rent, until they left the country voluntarily or were deported.

But now if they don't leave they face these new measures to encourage them to go.

This policy is being tested in pilot areas including Greater Manchester.

Review

But now, in the wake of two local cases, Greater Manchester's 10 councils have joined together and requested a review of the legislation before individual authorities implement it.

It is understood there are concerns about the moralilty of taking children away from their parents and the impact this could have on families.

The councils have written to the Home Office to express concern and demand clarification. They have not yet received a response.

Two families who fled persecution in their homelands - the Bolton-based Sukulas and the Khanali family from Bury - have lost appeals against the Home Office to stay in Britain.

Eviction notice

The Sukula family have been served with an eviction notice and their benefits have been stopped. They are living on voluntarily hand-outs from the local community.

The Khanali ruling, made last night, means their benefits will be stopped on Friday and they will be served notice of eviction.

Although their futures are uncertain, their respective councils are reluctant to consider the children’s situation or carry out an eviction until they have heard from the Home Office.

In the meantime, both families are being allowed to stay in their homes. It is understood that council chiefs feel their officers are facing “conflicting demands”.

The British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services have also written to the Home Office to seek clarification because they are also concerned.

Coun Basil Curley, of Manchester, ’s executive member for health and social care, said the councils had concerns about the impact of the pilot scheme on children. He said: “I am aware that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is to formally evaluate the pilot project in the near future and that this will determine whether or not the legislation is more widely implemented.

“In light of recent experiences in Greater Manchester, the councils want a review of the pilot to be conducted as a matter of urgency.”

Morally bankrupt

John Nicholson, of Bury Law Centre, which represents the Khanali and Sukula families, said the legislation was “morally bankrupt and deeply flawed”. He said both families were seeking judicial reviews and added: “They are traumatised at the thought of their children either being taken from them or forced to return to ill-treatment in their original homeland.”

The legislation came into force in December last year. It was pushed through Parliament by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett.

Refugee Action said 116 families in the pilot areas could be affected.

The Home Office would not comment on claims the legislation was immoral.

A spokesman said: “Section nine is designed to encourage more families to return voluntarily with packages that provide assistance for re-integration.”