Liberty today added its support to calls for a national demonstration in favour of the Sukula family on the 1st October. The Sukulas face having their children taken into care under Section 9 of the 2004 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act.

In announcing its support Liberty reminds commentators of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard, during the debate on these measures that: “This time they have gone further than any civilised Government should go. Earlier this week we read in our newspapers that the Government intends to use the children of asylum seekers as pawns”. Liberty is saddened that his prediction should come true.

James Welch, Legal Director of Liberty, said: “Recent media reports have highlighted how this measure is unravelling. Are ministers really willing to have a public battle to defend it? We hope the support shown for families like the Sukulas will make them see sense and abandon this degrading policy.”

Liberty Press Office: 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS
The 'Sukula Family Must Stay' campaign is calling for a national demonstration on October 1st in support of the Sukulas, against the brutal law of Section 9 which effectively threatens to take children into care as a measure to ‘persuade’ people seeking asylum to ‘voluntarily’ return to their country of origin.

Please note that the mother's name is Lusukumu, so the family is sometimes referred to as the Lusukumu family but the children's surname is Sukala. The family fled Persecution in the Democratic Republic of Congo and are seeking asylum in Britain.

The family has had their benefits taken away under section 9 of the 2004 Act, condemned by British Association of Social Workers, and face eviction and their children being taken into care. The Children’s Commissioner has commented on the situation, his note is attached.

The Bolton Branch of the National Union of Teachers commented on the 9th August: "The decision to terminate benefits for the Sukula family is a brutal act which is clearly against the best interests of the children. There is a lot of anger and concern in Bolton over this case with over 2000 local people signing a petition asking the Home Secretary to let the Sukala's stay. The Sukulas and people like them make a wonderful contributiuon to our community and wish to contribute economically (Flores is training to be a midwife; Daniel wants to be a plumber). Instead they are forced into destitution. We call on the government to reverse this brutal policy immediately and Bolton Council to provide for the family as a whole in the best interests of the children. The government claims Every Child Matters: this should include asylum seekers as well."

The family campaign can be contacted by calling Jason Travis on 07976476181.

Liberty’s Position:
Liberty opposed these powers when they were going through Parliament as part of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill in 2004. Please find below the relevant part of the briefing Liberty produced at the time. (A full version can be found on the asylum and policy pages)

11. Clause 8 extends the categories of person who ceases to be eligible for support[1] to cover failed asylum seekers with children. Liberty believes that leaving people without any means of support, in any circumstance, is inhuman and degrading treatment. No other group of people in society is forced into destitution by the state. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, and these provisions, such as refusing them state benefit, remove all lawful means of subsistence. It is inhumane to raise the spectre of depriving them of their children to facilitate their removal from the U.K.

12. However, as the power to remove entitlements already exists, and the proposal is to make the grounds for removing benefits easier to satisfy, we focus our comments to practical concerns. If someone with dependant children has their support removed while still in the UK it may be necessary to take their children into care. Particularly as Schedule 3 of the 2002 Act also renders the family ineligible for other types of support or assistance, for example those provided by the local authority. This will place a greater burden on the state than continuing benefit payments.

13. Powers already exist to remove failed asylum seekers. They can be taken from their residence and placed on a plane, or other transport, to remove them from the United Kingdom. If people are to be removed then these powers should be used, rather than forcing people into leaving the country by effectively starving them out. Forcible removal is unpleasant, but effectively demonstrates the reality of the failure of an application. When removals take place those removed become people rather than statistics. The Government should openly use the powers available to them, rather then pretend that only the removal of benefits can achieve the removal of people.