It is my pleasant duty to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his fluent and constructive maiden speech. I do so as one who went through the same experience three weeks ago, and I regret that there are not more hon. Members present to hear my hon. Friend. However, I am sure that his remarks will be widely noted and that both sides of the House will look forward eagerly to his future, no doubt distinguished, contributions.

I welcome the debate, even though it is so thinly attended by a small band of insomniacs. I hope that I can stay awake for the next 10 minutes! It provides an opportunity for us to reiterate the absolute commitment of the Conservative party to the National Health Service and the social security system. I am sure that, like me, many of my hon. Friends spent much of the election campaign reiterating that commitment.

Our commitment extends to the basic principles underlying the way in which the NHS and social security benefits are financed. I am sure that there is agreement on both sides of the House that the primary source of finance for our social services must be taxation.

At the heart of Conservative party philosophy there has always been the recognition that the state must provide for those members of the community who are unable to provide for themselves. That recognition dates from long before the existence of the Labour party and I believe that it will remain part of the Conservative Party's philosophy long after the Labour party has disappeared.

In reaffirming our commitment to state financing for the social services, we do not insist that that should be the only method of finance. It is also part of our philosophy that those who can afford to pay for services should be encouraged, if not forced, to pay for them. Just as we support the mixed economy, we support those who wish to make private medical provision. By doing so, they significantly reduce the burden on the state and the taxpayer. It is right that private medical insurance should be available to those who wish to pay for it, and it is directly in the interests of all NHS patients that that should be the case.

The picture in the social security system is more confused. I do not wish to trespass for too long on the ground so skilfully and professionally mapped out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), but we accept the principle that benefits must be financed from statutory sources.

Despite that, there is the curious situation that a major part of the social security system has been based on the national insurance scheme and the contributory principle whih goes with it. The operation of that principle means that many of the most disadvantaged groups, such as single parents, disabled people and some categories of married women, are excluded. The need arises for other types of benefit, such as the non-contributory invalidity benefit, that meet the needs of those who have been unable to build up a contribution record to qualify for the national insurance benefits.

It is a myth to say that our social security system depends on national insurance contributions, because the non-contributory benefits are an essential and accepted part of the whole system. There are, therefore, strong grounds for saying that the system needs to be overhauled and replaced by a single and unified system of noncontributory benefits. In the medium-term, this would be simpler for those who are entitled to benefit, and we might achieve a higher percentage of claims because those working with, for example, disabled people appreciate how many potential beneficiaries do not claim entitlement either because they are not aware of them or they do not understand the system.

A system along these lines would be more convenient and cheaper to administer. And if it could be integrated within the tax system, a major step forward would have been taken. We would be going at least some way towards overcoming the present absurdity whereby people who are unemployed or earning less than the average wage face an effective marginal rate of tax, taking into account both taxation and loss of benefit, which can in some cases be much higher than those on very large incomes indeed. It is not good enough for administrators simply to say that such a revision of the system is not feasible because the advantages are clear. It is just a question of applying sufficient political will.

I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) about unemployment benefit. I hope that we shall be spared any further agonising on this subject in future. There is strong feeling in all parts of the House about the importance of maintaining unemployment benefit in real terms for the large number of people who are in perhaps the most disadvantaged group of all.

The consideration of how to finance the social services cannot be divorced from how those services are delivered. We must continue to direct our efforts towards efficiency. There is still a great deal of persistent and widespread evidence of inefficiency and poor management in the NHS. There are still too many examples of large capital assets remaining in the hands of health authorities and not being utilised. A drive to dispose of surplus land and buildings is needed, for the sale of these assets could provide a major source of finance.

To quote from the recent and still topical example of the Tadworth Court children's hospital, a detailed study of the financial position of that hospital showed that about 15 per cent. of its revenue costs were capable of being generated by the interest on the proceeds from the sale of surplus assets around the hospital. I wonder how many other examples we should find if we carried out a similar financial analysis of the position of other hospitals? Think how many additional benefits could thereby be provided for the needy members of the community just by realising surplus assets. Those benefits could be provided without any additional cost on the taxpayer.

Reference was made to the Government's policy of care in the community and of joint funding. The care in the community policy has always had my support and that of most of the professional and voluntary organisations working in this area. But we must recognise that, if it is to be successful on a large scale, the policy of care in the community depends heavily on the ability of local authorities to provide and finance the supporting services in the community.

While joint funding is helpful, many local authorities are understandably concerned — it is true, to my knowledge, in Suffolk — about the eventual financial burden which may fall on them as they accept responsibility, especially, for example, for mentally handicapped people, who are one of the Government's declared priority groups. I hope that the Minister will go as far as he can in future in enabling revenue funding to be transferred from the health authorities to local authorities on a per capita basis for the mentally handicapped who are leaving the outmoded and unsuitable institutional environment of long-stay hospitals with the full support of the Government. The unsuitability of that environment was highlighted again only last week by disclosures in the press.

I do not suggest that voluntary organisations can step in to take over the functions of basic social security provision. We are agreed that that must remain the Government's responsibility. However, voluntary organisations in Britain have a long and distinguished tradition of innovation and experiment in social services. There are many benefits and practical provisions of care for both the elderly and the disabled which owe their origin to the voluntary organisations, and it is entirely right that that is so. The state is not well equipped to play the role of innovator. It is not equipped to do so by its decision-making mechanism, and there are proper constraints on the uses to which state funds can be put. But voluntary organisations, which are often run by the consumers of the social services, or by their families, are often in a better position to know what is needed by way of new services. They know what can be done because families do not take no for an answer. Those people are willing to risk their energies and devote their resources to proving that new services can be innovated. This is a most effective form of innovation that is carried out by voluntary organisations at a minimal cost to the taxpayer.

We are in a period which by common consent is unlikely to see major growth in real terms of expenditure on the social services. That being so, it is all the more important that we make the most of the resources that we have. By allowing private provision for those who can afford it, by simplifying and unifying our system of benefits, by striving throughout for greater efficiency and a proper role for the voluntary sector, we can ensure that social services develop and prosper despite the limit that exists on total resources.