This [s a maiden speech, which I did not expect to be making at this hour. My constituency is formed from two former constituencies —Stockport, North and Stockport, South. Stockport, South was represented by Tom McNally, who was well thought of. Throughout the campaign I heard nothing but good said about him, and I wish him well. Stockport, North was represented by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who sits on the Labour Benches. I am glad that he has made me welcome. I have been made welcome also by other Members within the metropolitan district of Stockport—my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold)—and I am grateful to them.

Stockport is a fine town in the north-west which I am proud to represent. It is ideally placed between the industrial and commercial centres of the north-west region and the magnificent countryside of the Pennines. It has first-class communications, being less than 10 miles from Manchester international airport and the motorway system takes drivers literally within yards of what is regarded as one of the finest—if not the finest—shopping areas in the Greater Manchester area.

Over the years Stockport has diversified from cotton into high technology industries—engineering, plastics, foodstuffs and printing. This diversification has meant that there are far fewer unemployed in Stockport than in almost any other town in the north-west. Having adapted to modern-day needs, it looks forward to the future with confidence.

Unfortunately, the social security has not adapted at the same time. I feel that we have spent far too much time wondering about where extra money is to come from and far too little about making it more efficient. If we had thought about how we could save on the cost of distribution, we should have more to spend on the poor, the sick and the old.

Savings have been made. A great start has been made recently with the new sick pay scheme, which, it is estimated, will save about 3,000 Civil Service jobs, for which the Government are to be highly commended. The new housing benefit scheme may save 700 or 800 lobs. I suggest that far greater savings could be made if we were to invoke a sensible tax credit scheme. No doubt, we shall soon hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) outline that scheme, and therefore I shall not go into it in great length but I wish to make a number of points. First, the scheme would combine the PAYE and social security schemes. Secondly, it would take hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people off supplementary benefit. Thirdly, it would largely remove the need for family income supplement. When the proposal for a tax credit scheme was introduced in a Green Paper in 1972, it was estimated that eventually between 10,000 and 15,000 Civil Service jobs would be saved.

Our welfare benefit system is now even more complicated, and I suggest that the number of jobs saved would now be nearer to 15,000 than to 10,000. This will mean not just 10,000 salaries saved but a saving in the offices and equipment used by those civil servants. The savings on administration could run into hundreds of millions of pounds. The change would not be easy, but the long-term benefit would be enormous.

The elimination of family income supplement alone would greatly reduce man hours on, for example, the calculation of fares to hospitals, free school meals, dental and optical treatment, free prescriptions, and milk and vitamins for pregnant mothers.

I commend to the House the Green Paper published in 1972 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services, which said: A system of tax credits would simplify the tax system and its administration, saving many thousands of civil service posts. It would increase the incomes of many who are hard-pressed. It would do so without the need for a means test. It would rationalise the system of family support. It would reduce reliance on supplementary benefit and would largely remove the need for a FIS scheme. And, given the will, it could achieve this at a cost that could be managed. The Government therefore commend the proposals as being the best approach to a solution of the problems of the tax and social security systems. Those problems are still with us. They are worse now than they were then. I commend that scheme. It is as valid today as it was then.