Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. It’s been a wide-ranging debate and, until the last five minutes, a debate that was well worth listening to. I hope you’ll forgive me, Llywydd, that I’m not going to be able to reply to all Members by name, but what I’m going to try to do is to respond to what I think have been the essential themes of the debate.

Let me begin with what seems to me to be, at least for the most part, the fundamental dividing line that runs down this Chamber. On the one hand, you have Mark Reckless and Mark Isherwood who want to explain to us why austerity is a necessity. Mark Reckless set out, in the way with which I’m sure he is very familiar, the neoliberal case for that form of economics. On the other side of the Chamber, you have Mike Hedges, Huw Irranca-Davies and Adam Price who set out—and surely this is a fundamental point of politics—that even if you believe in the neoliberal case and you can make the case for it, there is always a choice in politics. The argument that we are obliged to accept the dogmas of austerity because there is nothing else available to us is one that is absolutely right for us to reject, because those of us who do not accept those dogmas believe simply, as Adam said, that you cannot cut your way to recovery. There simply is no economic pathway to a future if you believe—