CHILDREN in Bolton are suffering as a result of the Government's 'get tough' policy against failed asylum seekers, council officers have warned.

And they have called on the Government to scrap their controversial stance of cutting of state support to failed asylum seekers in Bolton and leaving them destitute.

Bolton Council condemned the Home Office's hardline policy, saying it was having a detrimental effect on the children of asylum seekers and community relations in the borough.

A number of families living in Bolton - including the Sukula family in Great Lever - are now having to survive on charity and handouts from friends.

They have been affected by Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Act which applies to failed asylum seekers.

Under the terms of the act, the Sukula family's benefits have been cut off and they have been given notice to quit their house in a bid to force them to return to their former homeland.

The Sukula family fled political persecution from the Democratic Republic of Congo and sought sanctuary in the UK three years ago. The 'Let Them Stay' campaign is being backed by the Bolton Evening News.

And under the controversial clause, children can be taken away from their families and put in to care if their parents are left destitute through the actions of the Home Office.

Bolton, together with other authorities in Greater Manchester, Leeds and London, has been chosen to pilot the scheme.

In a feedback questionnaire to the Home Office, Bolton Council's asylum team manager said: "Section 9 should be repealed as this is not workable.

"New ways have to be explored to achieve what Section 9 intended. This cannot be rolled out nationally in its present state."

Bolton Council refused to evict families who have fallen foul of Section 9, and put children into care saying it conflicted with the Children's Act 1989 and raised "ethical issues".

"Under the Children's Act, the children's needs and best interests are paramount and the ethics of social work is promote family. Section 9 clearly conflicts with this," said the asylum team manager.

"It has been noticed that the behaviour of children has changed. This is as parents have tried to prepare the children in some way they may have to cope without them and parents may have to live in churches etc."

The claim was backed up by the example of a local family from Pakistan, where the mother though her children were going to be taken away.

"The mother got very upset and as the children witnessed this, the behaviour of the children changed in that way they stopped playing and went to their mother clutching her close as this happened. The long term impact of section procedures is immeasurable," said the officer, who added that hand-outs were not an "appropriate" means of supporting the family, and a long-term was needed.