It gives me great pleasure, even at this somewhat unenlivening hour, to open what the House might consider to be one of the more important debates to be heard during the long night that we are now enjoying. I welcome my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who is as alert as ever and ready to answer all queries that are put to him from both sides of the House. The House might be somewhat confused to see me, someone who in House of Commons terms devotes his time increasingly to foreign affairs, suddenly materialise in a puff of nocturnal smoke to open a debate on social services. All I can say is that the procedures of the House never cease to surprise me, although I have been here for some time. When a few weeks ago those procedures materialised in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who wished to propose this subject, I, recognising as do hon. Members on both sides of the House his great interest in this important subject, added my name to a piece of paper and it was first out of the hat. That explains my presence here. I am pleased to be here.

It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or my hon. Friends to hear that I do not propose to say anything startling. I shall leave that to the experts whose ardour matches the hour and will follow me after I have set the scene, which is the most important thing that I can do.

Applying an amateur but, I hope, realistic eye, I should perhaps first define the social services. It is not possible to have a debate on the financing of the social services without involving the full umbrella of the responsibilities of the Department for Health and Social Security. I regard the National Health Service as the first entity, personal social services, the local authority role, joint funding and the rest as the second and social security—which is the most important in terms of cost—as the third.

We are dealing with a vast amount of public expenditure. The social services cost no less than 44 per cent. of public expenditure. That translates, so The Times this morning tells us, to about £51 billion out of a total estimated expenditure next year of £126·4 billion. That is a staggering sum of money, and no less than £36 billion of it is spent on social security.

In that regard we are dealing primarily with pensions. I understand that the Government are committed to protecting pensions against prices. An even larger part of that £36 billion is spent on unemployment benefit. On that I simply say, "So far, so good".

I do not wish to embarrass anyone, but there was a slight hiccup which perturbed many hon. Members during the previous Parliament. I refer to the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit. That was put right earlier this year. Perhaps I shall preserve my amateur status if I say that I had strong feelings about that—so much so that they carried me into the Lobby against the Government and into one of several agonising talks with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was then the Chief Whip.

Running parallel with the enormous sums of money that I have mentioned are a series of terribly difficult decisions for the future. I respect those who have to take those decisions. However, I invite them to bear in mind that, whatever decision is made this year and the years ahead, it is not enough to demand increases all the time. Someone must pay for them. We have to earn everything that we give to those in need. Someone always has to pay, and we must never forget that. The more our country earns, the more it can afford in that regard.

The other side of the coin is that, in assessing such issues, there must be a serious — if not obvious —reluctance to cut assistance to the less well off. It is a tribute to the Government and to the British people that so far we have carried a high level of unemployment remarkably well. We have won an election with no fewer than 3·5 million unemployed. That is a new reality. It would have been unheard of 10 years ago. Above all, we won that election because we looked after the unemployed. That is most important. There may be higher unemployment in the forseeable future, but we hope that reductions will occur. However, with advanced technology and the world problems that we face, one does not need to be a genius to foresee that there may be higher unemployment. That being so, we have a serious duty to care. That caring mentality is a vital part of this Government's political image.

I shall address myself, first, to the National Health Service. The debate would be empty without mention of the Government's achievement. I dare say that my hon. and learned Friend may touch on it, but it is for Back Benchers to salute the Government's achievement in overall expenditure on the NHS. We are all familiar with the figures. My hon. Friends and I mentioned them during the election campaign, and we have heard them again since then. However, they will forgive me for mentioning that the increase in total expenditure on the NHS has increased from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to £15·5 billion in 1983–84, and that there are many more nurses, midwives, doctors and dentists. I shall spare my hon. Friends the figures, as I am sure that they know them by heart, just as I do.

The thing that worries us all is the danger of the bottomless pit. The more we give, the more people rightly expect. The more that we advance medically, the more treatments and drugs that can be offered, the more patients can be treated, and so on. But, at the end of the day, we can provide only what the nation can afford.

I congratulate the Government on the follow-through to the February 1983 circular and on testing the cost effectiveness of the cleaning, laundry and catering services. I understand that possible savings of about £800 million are involved, which will be used for patient care. Such matters are not easy, and obviously the unions involved are very disturbed. Like me, other hon. Members probably encountered NHS employees during the election campaign who were extremely anxious. Nevertheless, the Government should press ahead firmly.

Partnership with the private sector is an important aspect of Government policy. Nowadays, 4 million people, including many trade unionists, are covered by private insurance. They have sensibly been introduced to it by their unions, and they are very welcome. There is nothing to be ashamed about. Rather, it is a matter for rejoicing. The more private care that is supplied, the freer the public sector is to provide for those who remain in the greatest need. Pay beds provide an income of £52·5 million, which goes straight into the NHS.

In nursing homes for the elderly, well over half of the total number of beds are in the private sector. The use of those beds frees much-needed beds in the public sector. We must encourage this partnership. I know that there has been recent legislation, but we should also take careful control of the licensing requirements for those who take care of the elderly, not only in nursing homes, but, perhaps more importantly, in rest homes.

An enormous challenge for the future, which engulfs both the private and the public sectors, is the care of the elderly. In terms of increased expenditure and demand, this will be a matter of all hands on deck. It is an enormous growth area. In 2001 there will be 493,000 more people aged over 75 and 288,000 more people aged over 85 who will need increasing care and services. That may cause great anxiety to those who address their minds to the subject.

I shall say a few words about care in the community, following the 1981 consultative document, and the importance of joint funding between the Department of Health and Social Security and local government. That vital development should be encouraged. I wish that it did not have to be encouraged, because this money is spent in the same cause, as it leads to problems, the most obvious of which is the possible conflict between two budgets with different priorities.

We are dealing with two great Departments of state —the DHSS and the Department of the Environment. There are also difficulties in the balance between central and local government. Although many councils wish to commit funds to jointly funded projects, they may not be able to do so because of local or national priorities, or a combination of both. That is becoming an increasing problem. Authorities enter jointly funded projects, but, for one reason or another, local economies take place. That will happen increasingly in the years ahead.

There are difficulties with the taking up of revenue costs. After necessary expenditure on a given project is taken up — I am aware that we are dealing with a graduated take-up of seven years or however long it may be, but seven years is a long time—it is a considerable strain on local authorities. That must be borne in mind, as must changed circumstances.

As an example, in my county—I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to reply to it now, although I dare say that he is familiar with it — we have the Worcester development project, which is a pilot project to put the mentally ill into the community. That was financially dependent on the sale of a former site, Powick hospital. The sale has not been achieved, and the take-up of revenue costs has been altered.

No hon. Member would permit me not to mention and congratulate all those who, by their voluntary effort, help in all those areas. I welcome the Government's support, not least in the form of tax advantages in the 1980 and 1983 Budgets.

We must care for pensioners and the unemployed. The main success of the Government, and central to their economic strategy, has been the lowering of inflation. This will increasingly be seen as an enormous help in dealing with all these matters.

It has been a pleasure for me to open this important debate on this vital subject. I hope that we find enough money for the necessary projects.