The House recently debated the economy and unfortunately I was not called to speak again. However had I been, I would have given the speech below. Thank you Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that on either these benches, or those opposite, that there is any disagreement on whether the economy is where we would like it to be. The members opposite are quick to blame us. We are “cutting too far, too fast” they say, rhe line parroted from the Whips handout as they conveniently forget their own Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s parting advice. “There’s no money left”. Not to mention they would have been cutting four pounds for every five that we are. “ahhh, but things are different now” the Labour members will cry, “we should be borrowing more to stimulate growth, not spending less, that’s what you do in a recession”. Except this isn’t a normal recession, we aren’t in a temporary demand slump. This is a debt crisis and as everyone, except for a few dogmatic economists and their friends the members opposite knows, you don’t borrow more when your problem is that you’ve borrowed too much. As a result of this crisis we see our two biggest export markets in a state of flux affecting confidence and growth, across the world and importantly here at home. Combined the US and Eurozone represent 80% of our exports, we export more to Ireland than to the Brazil, India and China combined and whose fault is that? What did the Members opposite do to change that in 13 years in power? What did they do to reduce our reliance on the Eurozone? Nothing, Mr Speaker. Instead they spent £5 million preparing us to enter the Eurozone refusing to close the Euro preparations Unit until a change of Government brought the winds of change to the Treasury. These fundamental differences in approach expose the credibility gap apparent in British Politics. A gap that even the Shadow Chancellor’s admittance today that “We must be honest, that labour would have to cut too” can’t bridge. No credible political party in Europe believes the way out of this is to abandon plan A and borrow more. Yet that is still what we hear from the Right Honourable Member for Doncaster North and his saluting sidekick the Right Honourable Member for Morley and Outwood who continue to oppose every cut in spending. It’s vital, Mr Speaker, that we maintain the confidence of the markets, and to do that we must stick to our plan to cut the deficit. If we need any illustration of this fact look at Italy. On the very day of the Autumn Statement an auction of 3 year Italian bonds saw rates of 7.89%, a Euro area record and despite ECB intervention. In May of last year UK and Spanish bond yields were at 3.9% Italy’s were at 4, today Spain’s are 1.3 points higher, ours are 1.57 points lower. If we followed the party opposite’s “plan” for £326bn of more borrowing and saw our interest rates rocket to the peak levels of Spain, or even Italy, the results wouldn’t just be red numbers on an OBR spreadsheet. Hard working families would be really feeling the pinch, paying £5,000 a year more in mortgage interest, ten times more than the £450 a year the Labour party claim would be saved through a VAT cut. We know that deficit reduction alone is not the sole bullet to the economic mess left to us. I believe though, Mr Speaker, that this government has already done a great deal to rebalance the economy, to encourage business, to build confidence and ultimately to create long term and sustainable growth. In the past 19 months we’ve seen the jobs tax axed, a regional growth fund launched, the red-tape challenge started, enterprise zones created, EIS improved, corporation tax lowered, planning simplified and LEPs set-up. None of which happened in 13 years of the previous government. And as I’ve already said, Mr Speaker, we have done all this within a credible deficit reduction strategy, keeping borrowing costs down as a result. And I for one, welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on credit easing and the National Loan Guarantee scheme to ensure these low rates are passed to business. But Mr Speaker there is something missing from our current debate, and that is an honesty on both sides of this House on the difference between a growth and a stimulus strategy. The party opposite’s so called 5 point plan for growth is in-fact a five point stimulus plan, borrowing more now and dumping that money into the economy for short term stimulus. I am well aware of the fiscal multiplier effect of such strategies, but there is growing evidence that in a debt crisis it simply doesn’t work. Just look at the US, whose trillion dollar stimulus failed to deliver a higher growth rate than our own stimulus free economy. Or Sweden, a country that has also stuck to a credible austerity plan, and posted growth figures last week that outstripped all expectations. A real growth strategy Mr Speaker is about the future, it’s about how we rebalance and rebuild our economy. It starts at primary school, by freeing teachers, it takes in apprenticeships, reform of higher education, the science budget, support for regional growth, making work pay, and long term investment in transport infrastructure; roads, rail and yes airports. As many members are aware I am a great believer in making the UK a global business hub through a new airport. After all, we have inbuilt advantages, we own the language of trade, we have an advantageous timezone and we have the geographical position to attract inward investment. But we’re no longer trying to attract the same profile of investor. It isn’t the German businessman we need to attract, it’s the business men and women from Brazil, India and China, and when Paris and Frankfurt have a thousand more flights a year to China’s three largest cities than Heathrow, we’re simply not in the game. Then there is support. How do we support the industries that will be vital to our economy in the future, life sciences, high tech manufacturing and low carbon automotive for example. It isn’t about picking winners, and it isn’t about giving away money now, it’s about planning and preparing for the future, laying the groundwork for sustainable long term growth. So if we’re going to do more on stimulus for short term gain, then let’s call it that, and let’s remember there’s a difference between that and a growth strategy. One creates short term, one off jobs now, funded, in the party opposite’s plans, by future generations, whilst the other is about how we create long term sustainable jobs and the economy that supports them.