Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts
Wednesday 15th May 2013

(11 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Jones Portrait Mr Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am entirely happy to clarify the point. Membership of the EU will be subject to negotiation. To repeat, at the end of that negotiation, we will see whether the conditions are right for this country to remain in the EU. The interests of companies such as Airbus will, of course, be taken fully into account.

David Hanson Portrait Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

2. What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to housing benefit rules in Wales.

Stephen Crabb Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Information on the expected impact in Wales and Great Britain of the changes to housing benefit is provided in the impact assessments prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions.

David Hanson Portrait Mr Hanson
- Hansard - -

When the Minister gave support to that policy, what assessment did he make of the number of one-bedroom properties available in Wales for the 40,000 people hit by it? Does he agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, his noble Friend Lord Freud, who suggested that those who are concerned should sleep on sofas?

Stephen Crabb Portrait Stephen Crabb
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I followed closely yesterday the questioning of the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for welfare reform. His comments about sleeping on sofa beds were made in the context of families where the parents have split—he discussed whether there is a duty on the state to provide benefits sufficient for each separated parent to have family-sized accommodation for children during the same week. If the position of the Labour party is that they should have such provision, it should be stated clearly from the Opposition Front Bench, but picking up all the costs of relationship breakdown in that way would be an enormous burden on the taxpayer.