'TERROR LINK' WIVES FIGHT OVER £29,000 IN HANDOUTS

THE wives of three Muslim terror suspects have launched a fresh legal fight to lift strict controls on how they receive and spend up to £29,000 each in state benefits every year.

The women, who are not terror suspects themselves, have to account for how they spend their state handouts because their husbands are believed to be linked to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The men are on a United Nations security list which means their assets have been frozen and the restrictions on their wives are in place to ensure handouts do not indirectly fund terrorism. The trio, who are on legal aid, have already lost in the High Court and Court of Appeal in hearings that have cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds.

And the bill to the public purse could soar once again after they launched a bid to have their case heard in the House of Lords.

They argue the restrictions are “intrusive and inconvenient” but the legal battle was condemned last night. Blair Gibbs, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Inconvenience is a small price to pay for ensuring British taxpayers’ money is not being used to support people who even the UN regards as a terror threat.”

The wives, who cannot be named, receive between £300 and £550 a week each in state benefits for them and their families.

“M” and her husband are Egyptian citizens, both severely disabled. She has leave to remain in the UK. They have five children. Her entitlement is £353 per week.

“A” and her husband are British citizens with seven children, one of whom suffers from Down’s Syndrome and is severely disabled. Benefits total £548 per week.

“MM” is a Bosnian national and her husband is Tunisian. They have four children.

All members of the family have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The wife receives £313 per week.

At the High Court last year the women complained the restrictions meant they could only spend
their payments on “basic expenses” and they had to account for every penny.

Lawyers for the women, who are from London, Manchester and Birmingham, have said the Treasury “licence” limited them to spending benefits on necessities such as food, rent and medical treatment, but barred paying for a taxi or bus or for paying for their children to go swimming or to the cinema.

All must make an itemised return of their purchases and some can only withdraw £10 at a time.

They lost the High Court case and a subsequent appeal, in which Lord Justice Maurice Kay said the rules were “draconian” but did not take a single penny away from them and said the Treasury was justified in its restrictions.

That decision could now be challenged in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords.

Lords Hope, Walker and Baroness Hale have put the application by the three women on hold and given the Government an opportunity to lodge objections by August 9.

A Treasury spokesman said: “We are still considering our position on whether to object to leave for appeal being granted.” It is understood the Government will fight the case should the Lords decide to hear it.