A DISABLED ex-miner has lost a quarter of his benefits - because his part-time soldier wife was called up to serve in the war against Iraq.

For weeks, Michael Blackburn, 44, of Peterlee, County Durham, has worried about the safety of Pat, 42, and their son Wayne, 18, who is also serving in the Gulf.

But now he also has financial worries because Pat's Territorial Army service has made him ineligible for part of his benefit.

And because the rules have changed since his original claim, he has lost that part of his benefit for good.

Pat is a TA lance corporal with the 166 Supply Regiment and is serving as a supply co-ordinator in the Basra area.

Son Wayne is a full-time member of the Royal Signals Corps and is also in southern Iraq.

Mr Blackburn lost the additional cash because Pat is being paid for her service in Iraq and has exceeded the amount she can work.

"Pat works part-time so she can care for me and until now has earned below the threshold," said Mr Blackburn.

"We always declared that and anything she got from TA weekend camps.

"I have played ball with them but now I'm losing a quarter of my income.

"Surely the Department of Work and Pensions should take account of the special circumstances.

"She is willing to lay down her life serving the country. When she comes back I should have my benefits reinstated.

"She was mobilised in February. She had no choice, she had to go."

Mr Blackburn hopes Easington Labour MP John Cummings will take up his case.

He worked at Easington Colliery but had to give up 20 years ago because of asthma, bronchitis and high blood pressure and nervous debility.

At that time, sickness benefit included an extra sum for a claimant's wife, which the couple received until recently.

The rules for incapacity benefit, as it is now called, were changed several years ago for new claimants so that the extra sum is only payable to a wife over 60 or if a couple have dependant children.

Mr Blackburn will now be treated as a new claimant.

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions in the North-East, said: "The occupation in this case is irrelevant. If she was working in a hairdresser's the same rules would apply. It is unfortunate."