It is little wonder that the prospect of Britain taking even a handful of the terror suspects being held in Guantánamo Bay is being described in Whitehall as a hot potato.

Several departments must address issues ranging from any potential security risk the detainees pose to the immigration status under which they enter Britain, the housing and other benefits they can receive, and the inevitable public backlash.

How people react to foreign terror suspects being given sanctuary in Britain with accommodation, weekly cash benefits and access to the health service is a key consideration.

The Guantánamo detainees are expected to enter Britain as asylum seekers on the basis that they have a “well founded fear of persecution and torture” if they were returned to their home countries.

It seems improbable that they would be offered work permits or simply be given indefinite leave to remain. Accommodation would be provided by the National Asylum Support Service, which has premises in the North West, Midlands, North East, Wales and Scotland.

Unable to work while their asylum application is being considered, detainees would be eligible for cash support under the scheme at a rate of £42.16 a week for a single person over 25. They would be unable to claim jobseeker’s allowance, housing benefit or income support but could receive NHS care including hospital and dental care.

Probably the most difficult issue for the Government once they are in the country is whether any of the detainees poses a security risk.

That is a legal minefield and is certain to be a matter of intense debate between the Home Office and Government law officers.

If police and the security services believe that any of the detainees poses a threat to the country, but do not have enough evidence to prosecute in the courts, the Government’s only option is to apply to impose a control order, effectively house arrest.

One lawyer told The Times that it was inconceivable that lawyers acting for the detainees would not seek assurances in advance about their terms of entry and seek to rule out control orders.

“They are not going to come without someone asking the basis of their coming,” the lawyer said. “The Government is going to have to say if it is going to try to slap control orders on them.”

Control orders, which are imposed “for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism” can restrict a person’s movements, control their access to telephones and the internet and place them under a form of house arrest.

But the dilemma facing Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is that she would have to provide evidence to support an application for a control order in any particular case. If the only available evidence was from the United States, the risk is that British courts would ask whether it had been obtained by torture. If so, the application would fail.

If the courts refused a control order, Ms Smith would be faced with either sanctioning very expensive covert surveillance by police officers to monitor detainees or simply allowing them to live openly in the community.

As one official put it: “Bringing detainees here is not straightforward. A lot needs to be worked out.”

Times Recommends

• Charles blazes trail as sun king
• Thalidomiders win payout 50 years on
• Libel gag on talk of 'medical hurricane'